What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal rectified specific textual errors in paragraphs 4 and 11 of its earlier order. These corrections clarify that the appeal was filed by the Revenue and that a specific comparable company (M/s. MPS Ltd.) was not accepted by the CIT(A).

This is a corrigendum to a previous ITAT order concerning assessment year 2015-16. The corrigendum addresses clerical errors identified by the assessee in the original order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correction of clerical errors in a previous ITAT order to accurately reflect the parties and findings of the case.

M/S. Budget Impex vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2022

Pursuant to the application filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, corrigendum to the order dated 29.07.2022 in for A.Y. 2015-16 qua the clerical errors, which are mistakes apparent on record, is hereby issued as under:

I. In para 4 at page 3 of the order (supra) word “Revenue” be read in place of “assessee” as the appeal was filed by the Revenue in this case.

11th line in para 11 of page 6 of the order (supra) is rectified II. to the effect that M/s. MPS Ltd. has not been accepted as a suitable comparable vis-à-vis assessee in A.Y. 2014-15 by the Ld. CIT(A) himself. So in place of word “Revenue” word “CIT(A)” be read.

2 M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. (Successor of M/s. Agilyst Consulting Pvt. Ltd.) III. In para 11 at page 6 of the order (supra) clerical error being a mistake apparent on record is rectified to the effect that “so ground No.1 is determined against the Revenue”. Corrigendum is accordingly issued to be integral part of order (supra).

M/S. BUDGET IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments