BANSAL TECHNOBUILD PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 4(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal clarified that the correct date of hearing and pronouncement for the appeal was 05/08/2021, not 04/08/2021 as mistakenly recorded. The substantive decision of the appeal remains unchanged.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT had previously disposed of the appeal on 05/08/2021. A corrigendum was issued to correct a typographical error regarding the date of hearing and pronouncement.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was a clerical correction of the date of hearing and pronouncement in a previously passed order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
N/A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
of the assessee vide order dated 05/08/2021. However, I note that inadvertently typographical error has crept in the aforesaid order, wherein, the date of hearing and date of pronouncement was written as ‘04/08/2021’. However, the date of hearing and date of pronouncement is 05/08/2021.
Therefore, the correct date of hearing and date of pronouncement may be read as 05/08/2021.
The other contents of the aforesaid order dated 05/08/2021 shall remain unchanged.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
