The ITO, Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Satyam Corporation, Ahmedabad

ITA 1176/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5981 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 1176 & 1778/AHD/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 & 2009-10 ITO, WARD-9(1), AHMEDABAD VS M/S. SATYAM CORPORATION, ROYAL BUNGLOWS, NIKOL NARODA ROAD, AHMEDABAD-382330 PAN : ABGFS 9803 E / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) / DATE OF HEARING : 21/11/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19/12/2017 CORRIGENDUM PRONOUNCED ON : 27/02/2018 C O R R I G E N D U M PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 19.0 2.2018 POINTING OUT SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS CREPT IN THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2017 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.1176 & 1178/ AHD/2012 FOR AYS 2 008-09 & 2009-10 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.12.2017, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: - I) IN THE CAUSE-TITLE OF THE ORDER, IT HAS BEEN INADVE RTENTLY TYPED AS ITA NO. 1178/AHD/2012 INSTEAD OF ITA NO.1778/AHD/2012; II) IN PARAGRAPH 5 ON PAGE NO.16 OF THE ORDER, IT HAS B EEN INADVERTENTLY TYPED AS THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) INSTEAD OF THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) ; III) IN PARAGRAPH NO.6 ON PAGE NO.17, IT HAS BEEN INADVE RTENTLY TYPED AS IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED INSTEAD OF IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T ARE DISMISSED. CORRIGENDUM-ITA NOS. 1176 & 1778/AHD/2012 ITO VS. SATYAM CORPORATION AY : 2008-09 & 2009-10 2 2. WE FIND THAT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MISTAKES, WHI CH ARE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AS POINTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPLICATION DATED 19.02.2018, THE SAME ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED; AND, WE ACCORDINGLY RECTIFY THEM AS UNDER:- I) ITA NO.1178/AHD/2012 MENTIONED IN THE CAUSE TITLE A ND IN THE HEADER OF THE ORDER SHOULD BE READ AS ITA NO.1778/AHD/2012 II) PARAGRAPH 5 ON PAGE NO.16 OF THE ORDER SHOULD BE RE AD AS:- 5. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) III) PARAGRAPH NO.6 ON PAGE NO.17 OF THE ORDER SHOULD BE READ AS :- 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEP ARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MAHAVIR PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/02/2018 **BT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD