The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.wall Street Construction Limited
High Court
In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.wall Street Construction Limited
Date of order
—
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.wall Street Construction Limited, the High Court 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 respondents, Appeals shall, accordingly stand dismissed without any further 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
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1284 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Wall Street Construction Limited..Respondent.
Ms.Usha Dalal for the respondents.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1286 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Zycus Infotech Pvt. Limited, Mumbai..Respondent.
Mr.B.V. Jhaveri for the respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1287 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai..AppellantVersusM/s.Vinyroyal Plastocoates Limited..Respondent
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan i/by J.S. Saluja for the appellant (in all the appeals).None for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2009
P.C. :
Appellant is directed to remove office objections, if any, and serve the respondents within four weeks from today.
Hamdast allowed. In addition to hamdast service, private service by R.P.A.D. / Speed Post is permitted.
Failure on the part of the Appellant to remove office objections and/or to serve the respondents, Appeals shall, accordingly stand dismissed without any further 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