ACIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ETISALAT DB TELECOM P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3619/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 August 2023AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal clarified that the appeals were filed by the Assessing Officer, not the Official Liquidator. It also confirmed that the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were dismissed as infructuous. The corrigendum also corrected a typo in paragraph 11.

What were the facts?

This judgment is a corrigendum order to correct typographical errors in previously issued orders. The errors pertained to the assessment year, the party filing the appeal, and a word substitution. The corrigendum clarifies these details for the appeals related to assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10, and 2010-11.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was to correct typographical errors in a previous order to accurately reflect the parties involved and the nature of the appeals. The corrigendum aimed to ensure clarity and correctness in the tribunal's pronouncements.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No.3619/Mum/2015
CO No.107/Mum/2015
CO No.101/Mum/2016
ITA No. 7514/Mum/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1.

Orders dated 31.07-2023 passed in the above matters have some typographical errors as under :-

a) On page 1, in title, CO No 107/Mum/2015 pertains to AY 2009- 10. Not AY 2010-11. b) On page 3, last para, i.e. para 9 deals with appeals by the learned AO. However, in the first line at page 4, the appeals by the official liquidator are dismissed. This is to be corrected to appeals by the AO are dismissed. c) On page 4, para 11, the word “to” to be substituted by “two”

2.

Corrected cause title is substituted as above.

3.

Accordingly, Para No 9 and 11 are read as under :-

9.

ITA number 7514/M/2014 for assessment year 2007 – 08, ITA number 3715M 2016 for assessment year 2010 – 11 and ITA number 3619/M/2015 for assessment year 2009 – 10 is filed by the learned assessing officer. The learned assessing officer has filed revised form number 36 wherein the official liquidator of Etisalat DB Telecom private limited (company in liquidation) has been made respondent. However as the learned assessing officer has not shown that the income tax department has raised claim before the honourable High Court in the asset and liability statement

“011. In the result, all three appeals filed by the learned assessing officer, one appeal filed by the assessee and to two cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. “

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.08. 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →