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.8 OF 2006
WRIT PETITION NO.8 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.)
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.