1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.949 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Hiralal Enterprised ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan with A.A. Mane for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.999 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Rediffussion Denstu Young & Rublicam Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1005 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Nidhi Poloyster Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1115 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1116 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1117 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Ap1ellant. V/s. M/s. USV Ltd. ..Respondent. Mrs. Padma Divekar for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1181 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Spectrum Business Support Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr. S.J. Mehta for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1182 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Sulphar Mills Ltd. ..Respondent. 2 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1184 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Red Rose Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1187 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Rama Capital & Fiscal Services Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan 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.)