The Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S Cello Thermoware Ltd
High Court
21 Aug 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S Cello Thermoware Ltd
Date of order
21 Aug 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S Cello Thermoware Ltd, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is still on file of this Court not having been dismissed as yet by the Prothonotary and SeniorMaster.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 431 OF 2015
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (ST) NO. 1144 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income TaxCentral-III, Mumbai
Vs.
M/s Cello Thermoware Ltd.
..Applicant
..Respondent
....
Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Applicant.Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate for Respondent.
....
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.DATED : 21 AUGUST 2015
P.C.:
The present notice of motion has been taken out by therevenue seeking extension of time to remove the office objections as
directed by order dated 28 August 2014 passed by this Court.
2.This Court has directed the appellant/revenue to removethe office objections within a period of four weeks failing which allconsequences will follow. The appeal is still on file of this Court not
having been dismissed as yet by the Prothonotary and SeniorMaster.
3.In the above view, the applicant seeks condonation ofdelay in filing this notice of motion, as well as extension of time byfurther period of four weeks from today for removing officeobjections. For the reasons stated in the affidavit in support, thenotice of motion is allowed in terms of prayer clauses A and B.
4.It is made clear that in case the objections are notremoved within four weeks from today, the appeal will standdismissed without any reference to the Court.
[G.S. KULKARNI, J]
[M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.