Case LawHigh Court › Construction Pvt.ltd v. The Asstt. Commi...

Construction Pvt.ltd v. The Asstt. Commissioner Of

High Court 12 Dec 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Construction Pvt.ltd v. The Asstt. Commissioner Of
Date of order
12 Dec 2006
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Construction Pvt.ltd v. The Asstt. Commissioner Of, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.

Decision: The petition stands disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON WRIT PETITION NO.3059 OF 2006 Tyco Fire & Security India Pvt.Ltd. (Formerly Tyco Engg. & Construction Pvt.Ltd.) .. Petitioner. Versus The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax-10(2) Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.A.K. Jasani for the petitioner. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the respondents. CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE, & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH DECEMBER, 2006. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Jasani in support of this petition. Mr.Gupta appears for the respondents. 2. The petition is seeking to challenge notice dated 9th March, 2006 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2001-2002. The petitioner has filed objections to this notice way back on 18th May, 2006 but the objections have not been decided. 3. r.Gupta appearing for the Revenue states very fairly that the objections must be decided first before the Officer concerned proceeds with reassessment. This being the position, the Assessing 2 Officer will have to decide the objections first. We direct him to hear the petitioner and decide the same at the earliest. In the event the objections are rejected, the Officer will not proceed to finalise the reassessment for a period of four weeks after the decision is served on the petitioners. 4. Mr.Gupta appearing for the Revenue states on instructions of Shri C.D. Walinjkar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2) that the petitioners may attend before him on Monday i.e. 18th December, 2006 when he will be afford an opportunity of hearing and the objections will be decided at the earliest. 5. In view of this, no further order is necessary. The petition stands disposed of. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan