Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.ma...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.mandelia Investments Pvt.ltd

High Court 07 Aug 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.mandelia Investments Pvt.ltd
Date of order
07 Aug 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.mandelia Investments Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Mr.Sahadevan states that he does not have any papers in these Appeals and he does not know whether any steps were taken to serve the Respondents.

Decision: Both the Appeals stand dismissed.

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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.378 OF 2003 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.378 OF 2003 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.378 OF 2003 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.379 OF 2003 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.379 OF 2003 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.379 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Mandelia Investments Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 7th August, 2008 DATE : 7th August, 2008 P.C. P.C. 1. These Appeals were admitted on 16.10.2004. At that time, the Respondents were not served and nobody had appeared for the Respondents. When these Appeal came up for final hearing on 24.7.2008 Mr.Sahadevan had stated that Mr.Vimal Gupta would file vakalatnama on behalf of the Appellants. It appears that Mr.Sahadevan has now filed the vakalatnama on behalf of the Appellants. However, the Respondents have not been served till date. Mr.Sahadevan states that he does not have any papers in these Appeals and he does not know whether any steps were taken to serve the Respondents. He does not even bother to inform the Respondents that he has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the Appellants. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss these Appeals. Both the Appeals stand dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan