The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Ltu, Mumbai v. Reliance Industries Limited
High Court
03 Feb 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Ltu, Mumbai v. Reliance Industries Limited
Date of order
03 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Ltu, Mumbai v. Reliance Industries Limited, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In terms of the conditional order, the appeal has already stands dismissed for non removal of office objections.
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.3584 OF 2009
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1686 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – LTU, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
Reliance Industries Limited
..Respondent.
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant.Mr.J.D. Mistri with Mr.Raj Darak and Mr.Raj Tripathi for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 3[rd] February, 2010
P.C. :
1.A conditional order was passed on 22[nd] July 2009 for the removal of office objections within a period of eight weeks and it was observed that failing this, the appeal shall automatically stands dismissed without further reference to the Court. In terms of the conditional order, the appeal has already stands dismissed for non removal of office objections. Hence, the notice of motion for condonation of delay would not survive. In any event, following the judgment of this Court in CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Limited (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in Income TaxAppeal (L) No.3592 of 2008) decided on 8th July 2009, it would have to be held that this Court has no power to condone the delay. In the circumstances, the notice of motion is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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.