Vedansh Jewels P. Ltd., Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 23 December, 2019
Vedansh Jewels P. Ltd., Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 23 December, 2019
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 120 (0.67 seconds)Smt. Kala Manish Dhameja, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-1, Jaipur on 20 July, 2020
husband Shri Manish
Dhameja, on the ground that it was a typographical mistake. Obviously
such findings are devoid of merits and deserve to be quashed ... legally erred in ignoring the vital fact that the so-
called typographical mistake was not cured by the ld. AO u/s 292B
Rajesh Jasotani, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 7 February, 2018
Memo of Appeal in Form No. 36 is a typographically mistake and
therefore, the same is not significant for the purpose of deciding ... Though, the Ld. AR has submitted that this is a typographical mistake
however, we find that the file in the name of the assessee itself
V.R. Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissoiner Of Income Tax, ... on 30 October, 2019
Rajasthan High Court because
in conclusion in para 5.6, there was typographical mistake wherein it was
3 ITA 1056/JP/2018_
M/s VR Power ... favour of the assessee. Though, due to typographical mistake, it was
misunderstood by the ld. CIT(A) as in favour of the revenue. Moreover
S. Zoraster & Co. vs Ito on 1 January, 1800
Typographical mistake
Ratio:
Merely typrographical mistake in mentioning the assessment year would not affect the real controversy and such mistake should be ignored.
Held ... place of assessment year 1982-83 was purely a typographical mistake committed by inadvertence and in good faith. Such a mistake does neither affect
Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Kishangarh vs Acit, Ajmer on 2 April, 2018
incorrect number.
6.1 We find that it is a typographical mistake, the correct ITA No. in
case of M/s Anupam Marbles ... mistake which is apparent from
record except for certain typographical mistakes which we have noted
above. Thus, we donot think there is any basis
Dcit, Jaipur vs Zuberi Engineering Company, Jaipur on 21 February, 2017
order dated 18.11.2015
on the ground that there is a typographical mistake in the order of the Tribunal in
mentioning the " Assessment Year ... perused the material on record. We find that there is
a typographical mistake occurred while typing the Assessment Year in the caption of
the appeal
Ajay Krishna Modi, Jaipur vs Dcit, Jaipur on 24 August, 2018
Kolkata High
Court as 18.04.2011 appears to be typographical mistake. Even
otherwise these two dates do not have any effect on the genuineness
Nisha Jain, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 31 January, 2018
order of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court is a typographical mistake
as the fresh certificate of incorporation was dully issued ... Kolkata High
Court as 18.04.2011 appears to be typographical mistake. Even
otherwise these two dates do not have any effect on the genuineness
Meghraj Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs Dcit, Jaipur on 7 March, 2018
Kolkata High Court as 18.04.2011 appears to be typographical
mistake. Even otherwise these two dates do not have any effect
on the genuineness