Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central I...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Ii, Mumbai v. M/S.cello Writing Inst. & Cost. Private Limited

High Court 23 Jul 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Ii, Mumbai v. M/S.cello Writing Inst. & Cost. Private Limited
Date of order
23 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Ii, Mumbai v. M/S.cello Writing Inst. & Cost. Private 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 respondent, Appeal 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.183 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax Central II, MumbaiVersusM/s.Cello Writing Inst. & Cost. Private Limited ..Appellant. ..Respondent. None for the appellant. Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1617 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusReliance Energy Limited..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1618 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai ..Appellant...Respondent. VersusM/s.Essar Steels Limited None for the appellant.None for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1746 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusNew Globe Shipping Services Private Limited..Respondent. ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1759 OF 2009 Ciba India Private Limited..Appellant.Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 9(1), Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.Damodar i/by Kanga & Co. for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. P.C. : Appellant is directed to remove office objections, if any, and serve unserved respondent within ten 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 respondent, Appeal shall, accordingly stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court. (J.P. Devadhar, J.)(V.C. Daga, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan