https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794009 A typographical error in the DRP's deletion direction did not justify retaining an addition in the final assessment under section 144 read with section 144C(13). The assessment followed reopening under section 148 and notices under section 142(1), and the draft order had made an addition under section 69. On the substance of the DRP's direction, both proposed additions were covered for deletion, so no part of the disputed amount could validly survive in the final order. The article notes that the addition of Rs.10,00,000 was deleted and the matter was decided for the assessee. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jun 2026 08:33:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794009 A typographical error in the DRP's deletion direction did not justify retaining an addition in the final assessment under section 144 read with section 144C(13). The assessment followed reopening under section 148 and notices under section 142(1), and the draft order had made an addition under section 69. On the substance of the DRP's direction, both proposed additions were covered for deletion, so no part of the disputed amount could validly survive in the final order. The article notes that the addition of Rs.10,00,000 was deleted and the matter was decided for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794009