ARVINDBABU DESHMUKH PRATISHTHAN,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal decided to include the name of Shri Dr. Milind Bhusari as the Authorized Representative for all the assessees. This correction was made to rectify an inadvertent error in the previous order.
What were the facts?
This judgment is a corrigendum issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur. It corrects an earlier order dated 25-07-2023. The correction pertains to the omission of the Authorized Representative's name for the assessees.
What were the issues?
The key legal issue was the omission of the Authorized Representative's name in a previous ITAT order, which needed to be corrected.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
The present corrigendum is being issued to correct the inadvertent error in not mentioning the name of Authorized Representative on behalf of the assessee in the order dated 25-07-2023. Thus, the name of Shri Dr. Milind Bhusari shall be read as Authorized Representative on behalf of the assessee in place of NONE for all the assessees.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
