DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. UNIQUE SHANTI NEMINATH DEVELOPERS LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 1733/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 February 2023AY 2016-172 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal corrected clerical errors in its previous order. Specifically, it replaced the word 'assessee' with 'Revenue' in two paragraphs to accurately reflect that the appeal was filed by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

This is a corrigendum to a previous ITAT order. The assessee filed an application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act to correct clerical errors in the original order. The errors involved misidentification of the appellant.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correction of clerical mistakes in a previously issued ITAT order to accurately reflect the parties involved in the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Pursuant to the application filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, corrigendum to the order dated 24.11.2022 in for A.Y. 2016-17 qua the clerical errors, which are mistakes apparent on record, is hereby issued as under:

In para 3 at page 2 of the order (supra) word “Revenue” be I. read in place of “assessee” as the appeal was filed by the Revenue in this case.

II. In para 13 at page 15 of the order (supra) word “Revenue” be read in place of “assessee” as the appeal was filed by the 2 M/s. Unique Shanti Neminath Developers LLP Revenue in this case. Corrigendum is accordingly issued to be integral part of order (supra).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →