ITO, WARD - 34(3), KOLKATA vs. M/S. CITYWINGS DEALERS LLP, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2309/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 January 2023AY 2015-162 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal has corrected a clerical error in the case records. The name of the assessee has been amended to accurately reflect M/s Citywings Dealers LLP. This correction is administrative in nature.

What were the facts?

This judgment is a corrigendum to a previous order. It corrects a typographical error in the name of the assessee, changing it from M/s Citywings Dealers Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Citywings Dealers LLP. The assessment year remains 2015-16.

What were the issues?

The primary issue addressed is the correction of a typographical error in the assessee's name within the appeal proceedings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 2309/Kol/2018
C.O. No. 17/Kol/2021

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

CORRIGENDUM Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: At the time of scrutiny and disposing off the order, Registry correctly pointed out an inadvertent typographical error in CO. No. 17/Kol/2021 for AY 2015-16. The name of assessee has wrongly been mentioned as M/s Citywings Dealers Pvt. Ltd. instead of M/s Citywings Dealers LLP. Hence this corrigendum is issued to modify the order accordingly. The impugned order is hereby corrected and the name of assessee shall be read as M/s Citywings Dealers LLP. Hence this corrigendum is issued to modify the order accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Garg /संजय गग�) (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Dated: 2nd January, 2023 SB, Sr. PS

CO No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s Cityiwings Dealers LLP .

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →