What did the Tribunal hold?

The original order incorrectly stated the appellant's PAN as 'AAACS8577K'. This corrigendum rectifies the PAN to 'ACTPY5709K', ensuring accuracy in the official record.

This document is a corrigendum to the order in ITA No. 3095/MUM/2023, dated 28/12/2023. It corrects an error in the cause title concerning the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the appellant.

What were the issues?

Correction of incorrect Permanent Account Number (PAN) in the cause title of the order.

Tukaram Ramchandr Yedge, Navi… vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI

SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Tukaram Ramchandr Yedge Total Finaalfa India Ltd., Plot No. 26, MIDC, Mhape, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703 [PAN: ACTPY5709K] ……………. Appellant

Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(3)(5), Vs 3rd Floor, Room No. 323, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Respondent ……………. Navi Mumbai - 400705

CORRIGENDUM

In the order, dated 28/12/2023, passed by “SMC” Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 3095/Mum/2023 the Permanent Account Number of the Appellant has been incorrectly mentioned as ‘AAACS8577K’ instead of ‘ACTPY5709K’ in the cause title. The said mistake is hereby rectified by way of the present corrigendum and the Permanent Account Number mentioned as ‘AAACS8577K’ in the cause title on the first page of the order, dated 28/12/2023, shall stand replaced by and be read as ‘ACTPY5709K’. (Amarjit Singh) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 24.07.2024 Poonam Mirashi, Stenographer Assessment Year 2011-12

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

""थ" / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु"/ The CIT

"धान आयकर आयु" / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

स"ािपत "ित //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt.

TUKARAM RAMCHANDR YEDGE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 28 (3) (5), NAVI MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments