MTR CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2009/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal issued a corrigendum to correct the names of the assessee's counsel and the Departmental Representative on the first page of the appeal order. The original order's disposal remains unchanged, only the representation details are updated.

What were the facts?

This is a corrigendum to a previously disposed of appeal order dated 16.05.2023. The corrigendum rectifies typographical errors on the first page regarding the names of the assessee's counsel and the Departmental Representative. It also adds the name of Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR), who appeared during the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue addressed is the correction of factual errors in the representation details mentioned in a prior ITAT order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CORRIGENDUM The captioned appeal was disposed of vide order dated 16.05.2023. However, there are inadvertent typographical errors in the names of assessee’s counsel and name of Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR), was left to be mentioned, on the first page, who appeared at the time of hearing.

We, therefore, issue this corrigendum to the effect that name of assessee’s counsel and the name of Department Representatives shall be read as under:

Counsel for the Assessee : 1. Mr. Durgesh Shankar, Advocate 2. Ms. Tara Shahani, Advocate 3. Ms. Akansha Mohan, Advocate 4. Ms. Aanya Saluja, Advocate Departmental Representative : 1. Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR) 2. Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →