1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.601 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.602 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Boom Packaging Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mrs. Padma Divekara for appellant. Mrs. V.B. Patel for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.604 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Walchandnagar Hindustan Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr. F.D'Limal i/b. D'Lima Associates for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.607 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Umesh B. Dharnidharkar ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr. Jitendra Singh i/b. RMG Law Associates for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.610 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Proctor & Gamble Home Products Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr. Rajesh Shah for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.615 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Steelage Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven for appellant. Ms. P. Jain i/b. Pallavi Divekar for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.660 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Sadhana Nitrochem Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven with A.A. Mane for appellant. 2 Mr. Sanjiv Shah for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.735 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Ameya Developers Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.746 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Smt. Anita Vilas Thakur ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD 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. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)