DORABJI TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E)- 2, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3909/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 December 2020AY 2014-152 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rectified inadvertent errors in its previous order by correcting paragraph numbering and modifying certain observations. These changes were made to ensure accuracy and clarity without altering the appeal's final decision.

What were the facts?

This is a corrigendum to a previous ITAT order. The corrigendum addresses typographical errors in paragraph numbering and modifies observations regarding information provided by Mr. Cyrus Mistry. The corrections do not impact the original outcome of the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue addressed is the correction of procedural and factual inaccuracies in a prior ITAT order. The corrigendum aims to ensure the order accurately reflects the tribunal's findings and reasoning.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

As some inadvertent errors have crept in the order dated 28th December, 2020 passed 1. by us, disposing of this appeal, we deem it fit and proper to rectify as under :-

1.

At page 60, paragraph 47 is, on account of a typographical error, numbered as paragraph 37. Accordingly, “37” in the beginning of this paragraph stands substituted by “47”; and, all remaining paragraphs are renumbered as 48 to 67, instead of 38 to 57.

2.

At page 60-61, certain observations were made about Mr Cyrus Mistry. One fact, which was inadvertently missed out, was that the information furnished by Mr Mistry was in response to a notice. Under these circumstances, the observations made in para-38, which is now renumbered on account of typographical mistake as para-48, is modified by substituting as under:-

“48. It is well known that Cyrus Mistry, a former Chairman of the Tata Group, was removed from his position in the Tata Group on 24th October 2016, and within eight weeks of his removal, he sends this material in response to notice, against the trusts in the Tata group - including the assessee before us, to the Assessing Officer. The inputs from those engaged

Corrigendum Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 2 of 2 in a rivalry with an assessee ought to have been considered by the department with a reasonable degree of circumspection and should not be placed on such a high pedestal so as to relegate all other material facts and accepted past assessment history of the case into insignificance.”

2. The above mistakes stand rectified accordingly, and, to that extent, the order dated 28th December, 2020 stands modified. The above corrections will have no impact on the outcome of the appeal. The outcome of the appeal thus, remains the same.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →