Wp/1229/2005 Of Mr Top Detections And Services .P. Ltd v. The Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Mum And Ors
High Court
12 Jul 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/1229/2005 Of Mr Top Detections And Services .P. Ltd v. The Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Mum And Ors
Date of order
12 Jul 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/1229/2005 Of Mr Top Detections And Services .P. Ltd v. The Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Mum And Ors, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Petition stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition No. 1229 of 2005
M/s. Top Detectives and Security
Services Ltd., Mumbai .. Petitioner
V/s.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax
& Anr., Mumbai .. Respondents
Mr. S.N. Inamdar with Mr. K. Gopal i/b. M/s. Inter
Asia Lawyers for the Petitioner
Dr. P. Daniel with Mr. A.S. Rao for the Respondents
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 12.07.2005.
J.H. BHATIA, JJ.
DATED : 12.07.2005.
P.C.:-
P.C.:-
P.C.:-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and
the learned counsel for the Respondents.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the
order dated 15th March, 2005 passed under Section
142(2A) of the Income Act, whereby special audit has
been directed to be conducted in view of the total lack
of co-operation on behalf of the Petitioner. Various
details, which were sought for, have not been furnished
by the Petitioner.
3. Perused the Affidavit in reply. In paragraph 3 in
detail the various particulars have been set out, which
were sought, but were not furnished. The said
affidavit in reply makes it abundantly clear that there
were reasons to direct the special audit in the instant
case.
( 2 )
4. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere in the above. Petition stands dismissed.
(S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(J.H. BHATIA, J.)
(J.H. BHATIA, J.)
(J.H. BHATIA, 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.