Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Brief :
In the present application, the assessee has contended that in the aforesaid order, a typographical mistake has crept in inasmuch as in para 10 of our said order, we have wrongly extracted the portion of para 3 of the CIT (A)’s order, taking it to be the submissions of the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A); that the said extracted portion of the CIT (A)’s order is, in fact, not the submissions of the assessee before the CIT (A), but the operative portion of the CIT (A)’s order, whereas the submissions of the assessee before the CIT (A) are contained in para 2.7 at page 3 of the CIT (A)’s order. This para 2.7 of the CIT (A)’s order has been reproduced in para 3 of the application. The ld. counsel for the assessee, before us, has reiterated the contents of the application
Citation :
Shri Kaushal Sethi, DU-18, Pitampura, Delhi. (Applicant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25 (1),New Delhi. (Respondent)
Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access
Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
Sri Aurobindo Gnostic Centre of Education
New Delhi
CA
View Details
Shaswat initial support private limited
Ahmedabad
CS
View Details
Shyam Joshi & Associates
Pune
B.Com
View Details
Rahul Dang & Associates-Chartered Accountants
Pune
CA Inter
View Details
CAclubindia
