The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City – 3, Mumbai v. Lakewood Malls P. Limited
High Court
26 Jun 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City – 3, Mumbai v. Lakewood Malls P. Limited
Date of order
26 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City – 3, Mumbai v. Lakewood Malls 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 unserved respondent, appeal shall stand dismissed against the unserved respondent without 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.1938 OF 2009ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2159 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax, City – 3, Mumbai ..Appellant.VersusLakewood Malls P. Limited..Respondent.
..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant.Mr.K. Gopal for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 26th JUNE, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard. In spite of service, nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 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). Appeal be numbered. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly with no order are to costs.
2.Appellant is directed to remove office objections, if any, and serve unserved respondent within four weeks from today. Hamdust 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 unserved respondent, appeal shall stand dismissed against the unserved respondent without 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