1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.394 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Asian PPG Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.396 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mrs.V.B. Patel for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.398 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Rachana Goyal ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.407 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.408 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.409 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Prebon Yamane (India) Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta & P. S. Sahadevan for appellant. Ms. Usha Dalalfor respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.410 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. SPG Share Brokers P. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr. B.V. Bhaveri with Priti Shukla for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.414 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Tam Media Research Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven for appellant. 2 Mr. Ajay R. Singh for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.417 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Raas Plastics & Polymers Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.418 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Sunita Pipes Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven for appellant. Mr. A.K. Jasani for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.422 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Smt. Kusumdevi Modi ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven for appellant. Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi 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.)