Allowed

Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Telangana HC27 Jul 2023WP/16237/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interim application under Section 151 CPC to correct a clerical error in a previous order. The modification rectified the designation of the assessing officer from Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1 and extended the compliance period by four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order in W.P. No. 16237 of 2023 modified to read Respondent No. 1 instead of Respondent No. 2; compliance period enhanced by four weeks.

Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited Vs Dy… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶6

LA.NO.3 0F 2023

¶7

IN WRIT PETITI ON NO:^{16237 0F 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Juoallv Real Estate^{DevelopersPrivate Limited,1-1 23, 8th Floor'3rd} ,9lock' i;"ii8 ?g". M;-i"m" nuo, ti,tadhapur,^{Hyderabad - 500081,represented by its} oirector Sri Jdpally^{Vinod, S/o. Jupally Rameswar Rao, Aged about 41 Years'} R/o. Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Dv. Commissioner^{of lncomeTax, Central Circle.- 2(.1 ), Room No. 612' 6th} ' Friioi, Aavakar Bhavan, BasheerBagh, Hyderabad'

¶13

Dy- Commissioner^{of lncome Tax, Circle 2(1), SignatureTowers' Hyderabad}

¶14

lncome Tax Officer,^{Ward 2(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad'}

¶15

lncome Tax Officer,^{Ward 3(1), Signature Towers, Hyderabad'}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition, the HighCourt maybe pleasedto} passanordermodifyingthefinalorderdated2TloT12023passedin W.P.No.l623Tot2023byincorporatingRespondentNo.linsteadofRespondent No.2.

¶18

This petition coming^{on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and affidavit} filed in support thereof^{and upon readingthe order daled27107 12023in} W.P.No.16237 OF^{2023 ' andupon hearing thearguments of} tvl/s. R.S.ASSOCIATES,^{on behalf of Petitioner and of M/s' K MAMATA}

¶19

¶20

CHOUDARY, SR. SC FOR TNCOME TAX DE'ARTITIENT for Resp()ndents, the Court made the following. ORDER

¶21

This application filed seeking modification of the order dated 27r0712023 in W.P.No.1623t of 2023.

¶22

The modification sought for is to the extent that inadvertenry in the course of passing of the order in paragraph No.5 the status of assessing officer has been reftected as respondent No.2 instead of responderrt No.1.

¶23

on due consideration' we are of the considered opinion that the instant application does need to be allowed. Accordingly, the present l.A. stands allowed, modifying the order in paragraph No.5 where the status .f assessing officer has been refrected as the respondent No.2, it wourd be read as respondent No.1. Considering the error that has crept in passing ,rfihe order, the period prescribed for the compriance of the order wourd now stands enhanced for a further period of four (04) weeks from today.

¶24

//TRUE COPYII

¶25

SD/-,,.PRATHIMA ASSISTANT REGISTBAR

¶26

To, sEcIoN #r,"=* 1 -

¶27

The Dy. Commissioner of tncome Tax, Central Circle _ 2(.t), Room No. 612, 6th Floor, AayakarBhavar, grst

¶28

2 "Lig;bf,-ri;;erIH; IIE#;ff,,issioner^{or i;;;; ra;:il;rt?;):tisnaturerora,ers,}

¶29

3 4 The lncome Tax Officer wrrq?fil, Qignature Towers, HyderabaJ. The lncome Tax Officer. W

¶30

5 6. plEr-uuriiarhHf^{'8fHd'i'ftitfi} Q"#fEJ'.::T:';^ DEPARTMENT IOPUCl Two CD Copies^'

¶31

BSRcl

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1510912023

ORDER

l.A.No.3 ot 2023 IN

-r 1-=:=:---
,,,'-,,-\l'! -.--- s i,la..
c,^
/
? g SEP2M

¶37

WP.No.tO237 ot 2023

¶38

ALLOWING THE I.A.

Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sri Surya Constructions Vs The Income Tax Officer

Jalavihar Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Nanesh Finance Corporation Vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad