M/s. Megasoft Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 249/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5387 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M MURALEEDHARA REDDY

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !'# ! ,% !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '' / M.P. NOS.249 & 250/MDS/2016 (IN I.T.A. NOS.1252 & 1416/MDS/2015) ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S MEGASOFT LIMITED, NO.85, KUTCHERY ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004. PAN : AABCM 8933 A V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,( /PETITIONER) (+-,./ RESPONDENT) +,( 0 1 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI M. MURALEEDHARA REDDY, ADVOCATE +-,. 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SH.R.CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2017 4') 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.03.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITI ONS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 2. SHRI M. MURALEEDHARA REDDY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT AT PAGE 13, PARA 17 OF THI S TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS MENTIONED AS 2006-07 INSTEA D OF 2010- 2 M.P. NOS.249 & 250/MDS/16 11. IN FACT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE ISSUE AROSE FOR CON SIDERATION WAS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THEREFOR E, REFERENCE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS AN ERROR WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. MOREOVER, ADJUSTMENT OF ` 54,63,000/- WAS MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WHICH WAS ALSO AN ERROR IN THE ORDER W HICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ALSO. THE LD. D.R. VE RY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AN D THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPEAL RELATES TO ASSESSME NT YEARS 2010- 11 AND 2011-12. THEREFORE, REFERENCE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIE D. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS RECTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:- ON PAGE 13, AT PARA 17, IN THE SECOND LINE 2006- 07 SHALL BE DELETED. INSTEAD, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED:- 2010-11 AND 2011-12 3 M.P. NOS.249 & 250/MDS/16 SIMILARLY, AT PARA 17, IN THE THIRD LINE, AFTER TH E WORDS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 57,16,936/-, FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED:- TO THE EXTENT OF ` 57,16,936/- AND ` 54,63,000/-. AFTER RECTIFICATION, PARA 17 OF THE ORDER SHALL BE READ AS FOLLOWS:- 17. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 IS WITH REGARD TO ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS ARM'S LENGTH PRICE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 57,16,936/- AND ` 54,63,000/- RESPECTIVELY ON CORPORATE GUARANTEE. 5. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RECTIFIED ACCORDING LY. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 3 RD MARCH, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 3 RD MARCH, 2017. KRI. 4 M.P. NOS.249 & 250/MDS/16 0 +37' 8')3 /COPY TO: 1. +,( / PETITIONER 2. +-,. /RESPONDENT 3. 2 93 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 93 /CIT 5. ': +3 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.