The Commissioner Of Income Tax Xvi, Mumbai v. M/S.kamala Mehta Charitable Trust

INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.485 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax XVI, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Kamala Mehta Charitable Trust..Respondent.INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.676 OF 2008Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Nagpur..Appellant.VersusRavindrakumar S. Bhatia..Respondent.INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.680 OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusMelstar Information Technologies Limited..Respondent.INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.722 OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune..Appellant.VersusSudarshan Chemicals Industries Limited..Respondent.INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.723 OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune..Appellant.VersusRaisoni Exports (I) Private Limited, Pune..Respondent.INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.800 OF 2008The Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune..Appellant.VersusEagle Agro Farms Private Limited..Respondent.INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.883 OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City 5..Appellant.VersusM/s.Gabriel India Limited..Respondent.INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1060 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – XVI, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Sheetal International..Respondent. INTEREST TAX APPEAL (L) NO.4 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2, MumbaiVersusM/s.L & T Finance Limited ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.Suraj M. Shah for the appellant in ITXAL No.680 of 2008.None for the appellant in rest of the matters.Mr.A.K. Jasani for the respondent in IRXAL No.4 of 2008.None for the respondent in all other matters. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 27TH JULY, 2009 P.C. : 1.All the above appeals which are placed for admission today, were in fact placed for admission on an earlier occasion when conditional order was passed to the effect that all office objections should be removed within the time stipulated therein, failing which the appeals shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court. 2.Admittedly, the office objections have not been removed in all the above appeals within the stipulated time though the appeals are pending in this Court for sufficiently long time. It is pertinent to note that wherever extension of time for removal of office objections were sought within the period specified, this Court has granted extension of time. However, in all the above matters, neither the objections are removed within the stipulated time nor extension of time is sought for removing the office objections. As a result, the conditional order has become operational and all the above appeals stood dismissed for want of removal of office objections after the expiry of the stipulated time. In this view of the matter, no further order is necessary.