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.)
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.