Loading..
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)

    TATA STEEL LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S BHUSHAN STEEL LTD.),NEW DELHI v. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

    IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

    DELHI BENCH 'H', NEW DELHI

    BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    &

    SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

    M.A. No.78 to 81/DEL/2025

    (Arising out of ITA No.1493 to 1495/Del/2018 & 4650/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2013-14

    Tata Steel Limited (Formerly as M/s. Bhushan Steel Limited) Bhushan Centre, Hyatt, Regency Complex, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi PAN No.AAACB1247M Vs ACIT Central Circle -3 New Delhi
    (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
    Appellant by Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Advocate Sh. Akash Shukla, Advocate
    Respondent by Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
    Date of hearing: 25/07/2025
    Date of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025

    ORDER

    PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:

    These miscellaneous applications by the assessee are directed towards the order of this Tribunal in ITA No.1493 to 1495/Del/2018 and 4650/Del/2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2013-14.

    1

    2

    2. By way of the miscellaneous applications the assessee has submitted that there is a mistake crept in the order dated 08.01.2025 in para -8 on account of a clerical/ typographical error. She submitted that in para-8 at page No.9 below the second line it is mentioned as under :-

    "We also note that in the present facts of the case, the resolution plan is yet to be finalized.

    3. She further submitted that the resolution plan has been duly approved by the Hon'ble NCLT vide order dated 15.05.2018. In view of the above he prayed that para 8 of the order dated 08.01.2025 needs to be substituted / modified in line with the fact as under :-

    "8. that the resolution plan submitted by Tata Steel Limited (successful resolution applicant) in the case of Bhushan Steel Limited has been duly approved by the Hon'ble NCLT Delhi vide order dated 15.05.2018 and he same has attained finality vide order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT."

    4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that there is a clerical/typographical error has crept at para-8 on the page No.9 below in the second line. We accordingly correct the mistake and para8 on the page No.9 should be read as under :

    3

    para-8 page No.9 below the second line in the impugned order

    "We also note that in the present facts of the case, the resolution plan is yet to be finalized."

    Modified / substituted para-8 page No.9 below the second line in the impugned order

    "8. We also note that the present facts of the case, the resolution plan has been finalized.

    5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 is modified/ substituted to the above extent only.

    6. In the result, the miscellaneous application is allowed.

    7. Order pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 25.07.2025.

    Sd/- Sd/-

    (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR)

    ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

    *NEHA*

    Date:- 31.07.2025

    Copy forwarded to:

    1. Appellant

    2. Respondent

    3. CIT

    4. CIT(Appeals)

    5. DR: ITAT

    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

    ITAT NEW DELHI

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    TATA STEEL LIMITED (... v. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCL...
    (Aug 1, 2025)