Case LawHigh Court › Wall Street Finance Ltd v. Assistant Com...

Wall Street Finance Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 27 Jan 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wall Street Finance Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
27 Jan 2006
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wall Street Finance Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.

Decision: Petition stands disposed of.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2006 Wall Street Finance Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range 9(3), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Pankaj Toprani for the Petitioner. Mr.Ashok Kotangale with Mr.Prashant Uchil for Respondents. CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 27.01.2006. DATE : 27.01.2006. DATE : 27.01.2006. P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Counsel for the Respondents tenders the affidavit in reply dated 27.1.2006. The same is taken on record. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging reopening of the assessment. It appears that to the notice issued by the Respondents with regard to the reopening of assessment, the Petitioner has given objections in detail, and a reasoned order has not been passed by the Respondents with regard to the said objections. The learned Counsel for the Respondents states that the Respondents will pass a reasoned order with regard to the said objections raised by the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. 3. We therefore direct that till such a reasoned order is passed by the Respondents with regard to the objections raised by the Petitioner, the assessment shall not proceed further. We also make it clear that in the event the said order were to be adverse to the Petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of three weeks from the date of the receipt of the said order by the Petitioner. 4. Rule is made absolute in terms of the above. Petition stands disposed of. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.
✅ Get help with an income-tax 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