THE DCIT, CIRCLE.1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., THRISSUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member ITA No. 702/Coch/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dy. CIT, Circle - 1(1) Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Dhanalakshmi Building vs. S.T. Nagar Thrissur 686575 Thrissur 680001 [PAN: AABCT0019J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

CORRIGENDUM Order under section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in the captioned appeal was passed on 11.12.2023. It is, however, found that there have occurred certain typing errors and omissions in the said order, which are, therefore, sought to be rectified through this corrigendum order. The same being only correction of those errors, do not therefore per se cause any prejudice to either party. The details are as under: 1. Para 5.1 (pgs. 3, 4) (a) The word “assessee” in the sentence beginning with the word ‘The question therefore is the stage ......” be read as “assessing”. (b) The word “the” after the words ‘understanding, but,’ be read as “then”. 2. Para 5.2 (pgs. 4, 5) (a) The word “had” after the words ‘Vijaya Bank (supra)’ in the first sentence be omitted. (pg. 4) (b) The word “not” before the word ‘reversed’ in the sentence beginning with the words ‘As such, it is not……’ be omitted. (pg. 4) (c) The words ‘Or, where in’ be read after the words “In” in the sentence beginning with the words ‘In the alternative,….. (pg. 4)

ITA No. 702/Coch/2022 (AY : 2015-16) Dy. CIT, Circle - 1(1) v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (d) The word “contradiction” in the sentence beginning with the words ‘Clearly in case (B),…..’ be read as “contradistinction”. (pg. 5)

Sd/- Sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Cochin, Dated: December 28, 2023 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin