KNIGHT FRANK (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and issued a corrigendum to rectify the figure of income determined by the AO. The correct figure was substituted in the order.
What were the facts?
The assessee brought to the Tribunal's notice a typographical error in its previous order. The income determined by the AO was incorrectly stated in the order.
What were the issues?
Rectification of a factual error in the Tribunal's order regarding the income determined by the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
The “A” Bench of the Tribunal has decided the captioned cross appeals pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 18.03.2019. The assessee has brought to the notice of the Bench that the Tribunal has wrongly mentioned the figure of income determined by the AO in assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, at Rs. 6,69,00,970/- as against the correct figure of Rs. 9,69,00,970/- Hence, the assessee has submitted that a corrigendum may be issued and the aforesaid mistake apparent in the order may be rectified.
Corrigendum-ITA No 2410 & 3256/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
