The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.santacruz Contractors & Builders P. Limited
High Court
22 Jun 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.santacruz Contractors & Builders P. Limited
Date of order
22 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.santacruz Contractors & Builders P. Limited, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Failure on the part of the appellant to remove office objections and / or to serve the unserved respondent, appeal shall stand dismissed against the unserved respondent without any reference to the Court.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2015 OF 2008ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1288 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Santacruz Contractors & Builders P. Limited..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan i/by Mr.J.S. Saluja for the appellant.Mr.P.C. Tripathi for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Perused the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
2.Appellant is directed to remove office objections, if any, and serve the unserved respondent within four weeks from today. Hamdust allowed. In addition to hamdast service, private service by R.P.A.D.A / Speed post is permitted. Failure on the part of the appellant to remove office objections and / or to serve the unserved respondent, appeal shall stand dismissed against the unserved respondent without any reference to the Court.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(V.C. Daga, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue