JAKKIREDDY RATNAM,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that there was a mistake apparent on record in the cause title of the order. The PAN was incorrectly mentioned as AGCPR 7636 instead of AGCPR 7636P.
What were the facts?
This is a corrigendum to a previous order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Hyderabad. The correction pertains to a mistake in the cause title regarding the assessee's Permanent Account Number (PAN).
What were the issues?
The key legal issue was the correction of a factual error in the PAN mentioned in the tribunal's order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CORRIGENDUM We find that there is a mistake apparent on record in the cause title of the order, that the PAN is wrongly mentioned as AGCPR 7636 in stead of AGCPR 7636P, passed vide order dated 27/05/2021. Therefore, the following correction is made in the cause title and the same may be read as under: “PAN may be read as AGCPR 7636P instead of AGCPR 7636”
Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 31st March, 2022
:- 2 -: Jakkireddy Ratnam, Hyderabad . kv
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
