The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii v. M/S.bharat Chemicals
High Court
18 Jul 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii v. M/S.bharat Chemicals
Date of order
18 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii v. M/S.bharat Chemicals, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Issue: Perusal of the earlier orders of thisCourt shows that by order dated 25.6.2008 the Courtnoted that at the request of the learned Counselappearing for appellant, it grants one week time toinform whether the orders of the Tribunal forprevious years were challenged.
Decision: As what the tribunal has done by the orderimpugned in the appeals is that it merely followedits decision of earlier year and as the appellant isnot informing the Court whether the appealschallenging the orders of the Tribunal relating tothe previous year have been filed, we have noother alternative...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.48 OF 2008
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.126 OF 2008
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.127 OF 2008
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.184 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax III. ...Appellantvs.M/s.Bharat Chemicals....Respondent.
---
Mr.B.M.Chatterjee, for Appellant.
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: 18TH July, 2008.
P.C.:-
1.Perusal of the order impugned in theseappeals shows that all that the Tribunal has done wasthat it followed its own order passed for theprevious year. Perusal of the earlier orders of thisCourt shows that by order dated 25.6.2008 the Courtnoted that at the request of the learned Counselappearing for appellant, it grants one week time toinform whether the orders of the Tribunal forprevious years were challenged. The matter again wason board on 2.7.2008, again time was sought for oneweek to inform the Court whether the appealschallenging the orders of the previous year have beenfiled. The matters were on board before this Courtyesterday. They were called twice, none appeared forappellant. Therefore, we adjourned it today. Todaythe matters again called, again none appears forappellant. As what the tribunal has done by the orderimpugned in the appeals is that it merely followedits decision of earlier year and as the appellant isnot informing the Court whether the appealschallenging the orders of the Tribunal relating tothe previous year have been filed, we have noother alternative but to reject these appeals.However, the appellants shall be at liberty to move
Court, in case appeals relating to previous yearorders have been filed and admitted by the Court.Appeals are disposed of.
(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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