Uflex Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

MA 223/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2962 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIVE KUMAR
• Section: 27; 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member MA No. 223/Del/2021 (in ITA No. 1329/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11) Uflex Ltd., 305, 3 rd Floor, Bhanot Corner, Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 Vs ACIT, Central Circle-27, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACF0109J Assessee by : Sh. Rajive Kumar, CA & Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Jeetendra Chand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The assessee has filed this Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification in the Tribunal order dated 30.11.2021 in ITA No. 1329/Del/2015. 2. In the said Miscellaneous Application, it has been stated that there are so many typographical mistakes in Tribunal’s order dated 30.11.2021 with respect to dividend income, income from company wise details of dividend, title group concerns, citation of case law, additional grounds etc. Therefore, he has requested for rectification of the same. 3. We have perused the contents of the order dated 30.11.2021 and find that due to typographical mistakes, the following mistakes of the order has been wrongly crept in. 1. The dividend income shown as Rs.1,46,20,852/- instead of Rs.1,46,70,852/- at page no. 4 para 4 of the order. 2. The dividend income of the companies be read as follows: (i) Flex Foods Ltd. Rs.1,17,40,000/- (ii) Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Rs.4,20,000/- (iii) Ansal Properties & Infrastructures Ltd. Rs.2,94,955/- (iv) Kothari Products Ltd. Rs.7,62,000/- (v) Reliance Liquid Fund Rs.5,099/- (vi) Reliance Industries Ltd. Rs.14,48,798/- Total Rs.1,46,70,852/- 3. At page no. 5 of para 4.1 in first line the word “from” is to be deleted. 4. At page no. 11 of para 11 in second line be read as “the following concerns” instead of “the following group concerns of the assessee”. 5. At page no. 40 of para 27 at second line the case law citation mentioned be read as “306 ITR 392 (SC)” instead of “260 ITR 605”. 6. At page no. 43 of para 29 in eighth line from the top be read as “Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act” instead of “Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy”. 7. At page 43 of para 29 in tenth line from the bottom be read as “attracting capital investment in the State” instead of “taxing capital investment and the State”. 8. At page 43 of para 29 in eight line from the bottom be read as “The refund of VAT” instead of “The refund now VAT”. 9. At page no. 44 of para 29 in last line be read as “additional grounds raised by the assessee are allowed” instead of “additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed”. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is allowed. Sd /- Sd / - (Saktijit Dey) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 05/09/2022