1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1486/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.496 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Andhra Valley Power Supply Co. Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Mr.Ajit Shah with Mr.Dinesh Vyas for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2136/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO .1119 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Authomotive Manufacturers Limited ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2331/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3680 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Litolier Properties Private Limited ..Respondent. Mr.J.S. Saluja for the appellant. Mr.P.R. Toprani for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2332/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3767 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Limited ..Respondent. Mr.J.S. Saluja for the appellant. None for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2454/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO724 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Pankaj Piyush Trade & Investment Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.B.V. Jhaveri with Ms.Priti Shukla for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2455/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2252 OF 2008 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2456/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2247 OF 2008 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2457/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2622 OF 2008 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2458/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2590 OF 2008 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2456/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2274 OF 2008 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Tata International Limited ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Ajit Shah with Mr.Dinesh Vyas for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2508/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.7 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Kolhapur ..Appellant. Versus The Sangli Bank Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant. None for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2542/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1252 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, City VI, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Lloyds Steel Industries Limited ..Respondent. Mr.J.S. Saluja for the appellant. Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2544/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1042 OF 2008 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2543/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1044 OF 2008 Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant. None for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1942/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1694 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.Rajesh Patil i/by Mahesh Jani & Co. for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2520/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2300 OF 2008 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2346/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2305 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Black & Veatch Private Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. None for the respondent. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2340/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2301 OF 2008 3 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2502/2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2302 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Hoechst India Limited, Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.Damodar i/by Kanga & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Though there is delay in filing the appeals, no sufficient cause is shown. Apart from this, following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2009 (238) ELT 705 (S.C.), we have held in the case of CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A. (L) No.3592 of 2008) decided on 8/7/2009 , that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In this view of the matter, all the notices of motion are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs. 3. In view of dismissal of notices of motions, appeals does not survive. Hence, all the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)