THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 226/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 March 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal clarified that the original order contained minor typographical errors in mentioning assessment years and specific sections of the Finance and Income Tax Acts. These errors have been corrected to ensure accuracy in the final judgment.

What were the facts?

This judgment is a corrigendum to a previous order dated January 30, 2023, issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It corrects typographical errors in specific paragraphs of the original order concerning assessment years and references to Finance Acts and Income Tax Act sections.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correction of typographical errors in the original ITAT order, affecting references to assessment years and specific sections of tax legislation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 32AC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member

1.

In para 128, page 98 of this Tribunal’s order dated 30.1.2023, at the end of the first sentence of the para there is a typographical error in mentioning AY 2015-15 (instead AY 2015-16). Hence the first sentence of para 128 of the order is modified and substituted to read as follows:-

Corrig. to 126, 226 & 227/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 3 “128. The issues contended vide Ground Nos.2 to 9 for AY 2014-15 are covered by the decision as given in the earlier part of this order for AY 2015-16.” 2. Similarly in para 136 at page 102 of the said order, there is a typographical error in mentioning the words ‘Finance Act, 2002’ instead of “Finance Act, 2022”. Hence the opening sentence in para 136 of the said order is modified and substituted to read as follows:-

“136. However, the Finance Act, 2022 has introduced a new Explanation 3 to section 37 of the I.T.Act, which reads as follows:-”. 3. Further, in para 150 at page 108 of the said order, in the first sentence ‘section 32 of the I.T. Act’ is wrongly mentioned due to typographical error instead of “section 32AC of the I.T. Act” and therefore the first sentence of para 150 is modified and substituted to read as under:-

“150. Before proceeding further, there is necessity to examine the background under which section 32AC of the I.T. Act was introduced.” 4. Except for the above modifications, there is no change in rest of the order of the Tribunal dated 30.1.2023.

Sd/- Sd/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( PADMAVATHY S. ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 27th March, 2023. /Desai S Murthy /

Corrig. to 126, 226 & 227/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →