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.)
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.