TS KUMARASAMY,THIRUCHENGODU vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
What were the facts?
This judgment is a corrigendum to a previous order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench. It corrects the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title of the appeals.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was a clerical error in the cause title of the appeals regarding the Appellant's representative's name.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
order dated 07th July, 2023, in TO 905/Chny/2022 and ITA Nos. 872 TO 879/Chny/2022, the Appellant’s Representative name mentioned in the cause title is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate instead of Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
