HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, MUMBAI
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 acknowledged a mistake apparent from the record regarding the Assessment Year in its previous order. It has issued a corrigendum to rectify this error, replacing the incorrect year with the correct one.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, filed an appeal with the ITAT. The ITAT had previously passed an order on March 2, 2020, but mistakenly mentioned the Assessment Year as 2014-15 instead of the correct year, 2013-14.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was a factual error in the Assessment Year mentioned in a previously passed ITAT order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CORRIGENDUM Vide application dated 15.10.20, Sh. Shrikant R. Hasyagar, Chief General Manager-Tax, M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has brought to our notice a mistake apparent in the order dated 02.03.2020, passed by the “H” Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s appeal, Tribunal has mentioned the Assessment Year 2014-15 instead of Assessment Year 2013-14.
We have perused the record in the light of the contents of the application filed on behalf of the assessee. As submitted by the applicant, the „H‟ Bench of the Tribunal has disposed off the captioned appeal vide order dated 02.03.2020. The said appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14, however, in the order dtd. 02.03.2020, Assessment Year has been shown as 2014-15, which is factually incorrect. In our considered view this is a mistake apparent from the record, which requires rectification. Therefore, by way of this corrigendum we rectify the said mistake and replace the incorrect assessment year “2014-15” appearing on page No. 1 of the order with the correct assessment year “2013-14”. Hence, the Assessment Year
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026