ARIHANT PATNI,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1248/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 June 2022AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal corrected its previous order to state that the appeals were 'partly allowed' for statistical purposes, rather than 'allowed'. This correction was made to reflect the intended decision.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the assessees against the orders of the Income Tax Officer and DCIT. A corrigendum was issued to correct a typographical error in the original order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was a typographical error in the Tribunal's order regarding the extent to which the appeals were allowed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No.2695/PUN/2016
ITA No.2696/PUN/2016
ITA No.1248/PUN/2017
ITA No.1249/PUN/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

This corrigendum is being issued to correct the typographical error in Para No.7 of the order of Tribunal dated 07-06-2021. It is mentioned at the ending of last line of the Para No.7 as “three appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose” instead of “three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose”. The same may be read as “three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose”. It is mentioned at the ending of last line of the Para No.8 as “appeals of both the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose” instead of “appeals of both the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose”. The same may be read as “appeals of both the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose”.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →