1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1196 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1198 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1200 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – City VII ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Siemens Limited ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Rajiv Singh i/by Chitnis & Co. for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1428 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1431 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Akay Organics Private Limited ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1429 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1433 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI, Mumbai ..Appellant Versus M/s.Atharva Builders Private Limited, Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1430 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI, Mumbai ..Appellant Versus M/s.Ifflunik Pharmaceuticals Limited ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1432 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI, Mumbai ..Appellant Versus Shri Ashok P. Hinduja ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1434 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI, Mumbai ..Appellant Versus M/s.Antop Hill Warehousing Co. Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant in all the appeals. None for the respondent. 2 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1486 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai ..Appellant Versus N.M. Fashions ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1488 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai ..Appellant Versus Jayesh Chauhan (HUF) ..Respondent. Mr.K.R. Chaudhari for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. As the revenue has sought extension of time for removing office objections as per the conditional order passed earlier, all these matters have been placed for direction. In all these matters, it is found that the appeal are time-barred. There is no prayer for condonation of delay in these 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 Income Tax Appeal (L) No.3592 of 2008] decided on 8/7/2009 that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In this view of the matter, all these appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)