What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal corrected the error by substituting the Assessing Officer for the CIT(Appeals) in the directive. The rest of the order remains unchanged.

This is a corrigendum to a previous ITAT order. An error was identified in paragraph 11 of the original order concerning the direction given to the authorities.

What were the issues?

The issue was a clerical error in identifying the authority to whom a directive was issued in a previous order.

Bank of Maharashtra vs DCIT | ITAT Pune 2020

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.114/PUN/2018

ITA No.780/PUN/2018

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 81 & 585/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Bank of Maharashtra, 1501, Lokmangal, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 005. PAN: AACCB0774B ……""थ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 114 & 780/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Bank of Maharashtra, 1501, Lokmangal, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 005. PAN: AACCB0774B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune ……""थ" / Respondent CORRIGENDUM PER BENCH: We find that an error has crept in para 11 of the order of the Tribunal vide ITA No.114/PUN/2018 and ITA No.780/PUN/2018 dated 13.03.2020. Hence, this Corrigendum is being issued.

In the last/finding part of said para 11 of the order of the Tribunal dated 13.03.2020 (supra), it has been wrongly stated that :- “11. ………. In view of the decision mentioned hereinabove, we direct the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to comply with our order in assessee’s own case dated ITA Nos.114 & 780/PUN/2018 27.06.2019 (supra.) and decide the matter accordingly. Thus, Ground No.2 raised in appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.”

We hereby direct that the following sentence may be substituted in place of the above para 11 of the order of the Tribunal dated 13.03.2020 (supra) :- “11. ………. In view of the decision mentioned hereinabove, we direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to comply with our order in assessee’s own case dated 27.06.2019 (supra.) and decide the matter accordingly. Thus, Ground No.2 raised in appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.”

The remaining order shall remain unchanged. Corrigendum pronounced on 22nd day of June, 2020. PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY D. KARUNAKARA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; िदनांक / Dated : 22nd June, 2020. Sujeet आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

""थ" / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT(Appeal)-1, Pune

The Pr. CIT-1, Pune. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब"च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - 1, PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments