The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iv, Pune v. Western Maharashtra Development Corpn. Limited, Pune
High Court
08 Jul 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iv, Pune v. Western Maharashtra Development Corpn. Limited, Pune
Date of order
08 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iv, Pune v. Western Maharashtra Development Corpn. Limited, Pune, 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 without any 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.3597 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – IV, Pune
..Appellant.
VersusWestern maharashtra Development Corpn. Limited, Pune
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.None for the respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3602 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan i/by Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3604 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Procter & Gamble Distribution Co. Limited..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan i/by Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Sanjiv M. Shah for the respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3606 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiVersusM/s.N.R. Jet Enterprises Limited, Mumbai
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. sahadevan i/by Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.S.S. Shetty for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009
P.C. :
Appellant is directed to remove office objections, if any, and serve unserved respondent within eight 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 without any 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