CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd.

440 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2022#6783 most cited

What is CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. authority for?

Non-adjudication of grounds of appeal constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, falling within the scope of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's powers under Section 254(2) are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, allowing rectification of mistakes apparent from the record without re-visiting the merits of the earlier order.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd · section 254(2) · mistake apparent from record · non-adjudication of grounds · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · rectification of order · recall of order · MA application

Also reported as

133 Taxmann.com 41

Sections most often in play

Section 254(2)Section 145ASection 43BSection 116Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 186section 116section 254(2)mistake apparent from recordrectification under section 154retrospective amendmentsection 155section 206csection 206section 145asection 18miscellaneous application

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd.

Vaks Multiple Service Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3255/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Vaks Multiple Service Vs Acit Plot No. 58-59, D L F Main Cgo Complex, Nh 4, Market, Sector-11, Faridabad, Nit, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana Pan: Aaecv4819M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ For Short), New Delhi Dated 17/03/2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2019-20 Having Gross Total Income Of Rs. 79,44,337/-. During The Processing Of Itr U/S. 143(1)(A), The Cpc Had Disallowed Rs. 33,02,357/- On Account Of Delay In Payment Of Employees Share Of Esi & Pf. Being Aggrieved With The Aforesaid Disallowance Of Rs. 33,02,357/-, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). The Cit (Nfac) Vide Order Vaks Multiple Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…e mistake which is apparent from the record on the date of passing the order. On the scope of section 254(2) of the Act, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd, reported in (2022) 440 ITR 1 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Court has defined the scope of powers u/s.254(2). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the powers u/s.254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and while considering the application u/s.254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into details on merits. The powers…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both recalled appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 4174/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 254(2)

…n-adjudication of grounds of appeal, constitutes mistake apparent from record falling within the scope of section 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd: 295 ITR 466 (SC), CIT Reliance Telecom Ltd: 440 ITR 1 (SC). The said Tribunal order is therefore recalled for the limited purpose of adjudicating the grounds 2.1 to 2.1.2 and ground 2.2. Accordingly, the M.A. no 355/Del/2024 is allowed." 2.2 The assessee’s MA arisen from the Revenue Appeal in ITA 4147/Del/2010 was allowed and the consequential addition/disallowance of provisional liability for FPI-OE…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both recalled appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 254(2)

…n-adjudication of grounds of appeal, constitutes mistake apparent from record falling within the scope of section 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd: 295 ITR 466 (SC), CIT Reliance Telecom Ltd: 440 ITR 1 (SC). The said Tribunal order is therefore recalled for the limited purpose of adjudicating the grounds 2.1 to 2.1.2 and ground 2.2. Accordingly, the M.A. no 355/Del/2024 is allowed." 2.2 The assessee’s MA arisen from the Revenue Appeal in ITA 4147/Del/2010 was allowed and the consequential addition/disallowance of provisional liability for FPI-OE…

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…rvices Ltd., (supra) with that of the assessee. The ld. AR further argued that in the said decision the reason quoted by the Co-ordinate Bench by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. [2022] 440 ITR 1 (SC) is that the powers under section 254(2) are there only to rectify any mistake apparent on record and that the subsequent decision of a higher forum by itself cannot be a ground for review. The ld. AR also argued that in assessee's case there is no review or revision by the AO since in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act the AO has a…

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1405/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…rvices Ltd., (supra) with that of the assessee. The ld. AR further argued that in the said decision the reason quoted by the Co-ordinate Bench by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. [2022] 440 ITR 1 (SC) is that the powers under section 254(2) are there only to rectify any mistake apparent on record and that the subsequent decision of a higher forum by itself cannot be a ground for review. The ld. AR also argued that in assessee's case there is no review or revision by the AO since in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act the AO has a…

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1404/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…rvices Ltd., (supra) with that of the assessee. The ld. AR further argued that in the said decision the reason quoted by the Co-ordinate Bench by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. [2022] 440 ITR 1 (SC) is that the powers under section 254(2) are there only to rectify any mistake apparent on record and that the subsequent decision of a higher forum by itself cannot be a ground for review. The ld. AR also argued that in assessee's case there is no review or revision by the AO since in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act the AO has a…

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1403/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

…rvices Ltd., (supra) with that of the assessee. The ld. AR further argued that in the said decision the reason quoted by the Co-ordinate Bench by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. [2022] 440 ITR 1 (SC) is that the powers under section 254(2) are there only to rectify any mistake apparent on record and that the subsequent decision of a higher forum by itself cannot be a ground for review. The ld. AR also argued that in assessee's case there is no review or revision by the AO since in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act the AO has a…

DCIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi vs. Style Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both recalled appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 4174/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 254(2)

…n-adjudication of grounds of appeal, constitutes mistake apparent from record falling within the scope of section 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd: 295 ITR 466 (SC), CIT Reliance Telecom Ltd: 440 ITR 1 (SC). The said Tribunal order is therefore recalled for the limited purpose of adjudicating the grounds 2.1 to 2.1.2 and ground 2.2. Accordingly, the M.A. no 355/Del/2024 is allowed." 2.2 The assessee’s MA arisen from the Revenue Appeal in ITA 4147/Del/2010 was allowed and the consequential addition/disallowance of provisional liability for FPI-OE…

United Freight Carriers Private Limited, Visakhapatanam vs. DCIT Circle-4(1), Visakhapatanam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 74/VIZ/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.74/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) United Freight Carriers Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Flat No.205, Vinayaka Paradise Circle-5(1) Near Srinagar Bus Stop, Srinagar Visakhapatnam Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam - 530 026 Andhra Pradesh

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…further emphasised that, subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order XLVII of the CPC. Ld.AR also relied on the case of CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [(2022) 440 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that, the powers under section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, then Page No. 4 I.T.A. No. 74/VIZ/2022 United Freight Carriers Private Limited it cannot be held that scope of power under section 254(2) of the Act is beyond and much larger than scope of review as given in th…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3501/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT-2(2)(2), M/s Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5th floor, 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. AB Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACY 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Yes Bank Ltd., DCIT-2(2)(2), 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5th floor, Aayakar Discovery of India, Dr. AB Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-40001…

DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3239/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT-2(2)(2), M/s Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5th floor, 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. AB Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACY 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Yes Bank Ltd., DCIT-2(2)(2), 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5th floor, Aayakar Discovery of India, Dr. AB Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-40001…

Kantilal Bishweshwar Pal, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, TDS, CPC, Ghaziabad

ITA 337/PUN/2022[2013-14 (26Q Q-3)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem.A.No.337/Pun./2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.2443/Pun./2017 - Assessment Year 2013-2014 Shri Ramraje Namdevrao Jadhav, Flat No.806, The Ito, Ward – 11 (1), Building A-2, 8Th Floor, Mont Vs. Vert Prestine, Behind Khadki Pune. Railway Station, Khadki, Pune – 411 020 Pan Abapj9226E (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.337/PUN./2022 Arising out of I.T.A.No.2443/PUN./2017 - Assessment Year 2013-2014 Shri Ramraje Namdevrao Jadhav, Flat No.806, The ITO, Ward – 11 (1), Building A-2, 8th Floor, Mont vs. Vert Prestine, Behind Khadki Pune. Railway Station, Khadki, Pune – 411 020 PAN ABAPJ9226E (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Hari Krishan For Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 16.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA,…

Sanjay Mahadev Khopkar, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.-3(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Sanjay Mahadev Khopkar, A.C.I.T., C-102, Sanskar Jyot, Gaon Devi Circle-3(2), Vs. Road, More Tower Dombivilli West Surat. Kalyan, Thakurli Thane, Maharastra-421201. Pan No. Agipk 1744 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 205Section 254(1)

…t of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavane Vs DCIT reported in 440 ITR 1(Guj)/(2021) 132 taxmann.com 293 (Guj) and various other decisions of the Tribunal including the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Girishchandra Keshav Bhatt Vs Circle 3(1), Surat in ITA No. 154 & 232/Srt/2021 order dated 06/06/2022. The ld. AR for the assessee further submits that the assessee was employed with ABG Shipyard Limited, who dedu…

Shapoorji Pallonji Bumi Armada P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1353/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

…ITA No.: 1353/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI J BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA No.: 1353/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Shapoorji Pallonji Bumi Armada Pvt Ltd .…………………………Appellant 602, Trade Centre, BKC, Opp MTNL Office Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AABCF6263G] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai ……………...…………Respondent Appearances by: Mukesh Butani, alongwith Karishma Phatarphkar, Pratik Poddar and Rohan Vasuna for the appellant Vatsala Jha for the re…

Sp Armada Oil Exploration P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-3(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1352/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

…ITA No.: 1352/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI J BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA No.: 1352/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 SP Armada Oil Exploration Limited .…………………………Appellant 602, Trade Centre, BKC, Opp MTNL Office Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAQCS7983P] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai ……………...…………Respondent Appearances by: Mukesh Butani, alongwith Karishma Phatarphkar, Pratik Poddar and Rohan Vasuna for the appellant Vatsala Jha for the respon…

Cosyn Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 65/HYD/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum.A.Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.64 & 65/Hyd/2019) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Cosyn Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Of Income Tax, Css Technergy Limited). Tds, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aabcc3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Praveen Nair For Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue By: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 Order Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’S Twin Miscellaneous Applications Filed U/S 254(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Seek To Recall Our Impugned Common Order 11.06.2021 Deleting Section 200A R.W.S. 234E Late Filing Fee; Involving Varying Sums, Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

For Appellant: Sri Praveen Nair for Sri Karan TalwarFor Respondent: Sri Swapnil Patil
Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member M.A.Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 (Arising out of ITA Nos.64 & 65/Hyd/2019) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s. Cosyn Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Formerly known as of Income Tax, CSS Technergy Limited). TDS, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN No.AABCC3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri Praveen Nair for Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue by: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date of hearing: 04/02/2022 Date of pronouncement: 16/02/2022…

Cosyn Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 64/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum.A.Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.64 & 65/Hyd/2019) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Cosyn Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Of Income Tax, Css Technergy Limited). Tds, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aabcc3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Praveen Nair For Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue By: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 Order Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’S Twin Miscellaneous Applications Filed U/S 254(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Seek To Recall Our Impugned Common Order 11.06.2021 Deleting Section 200A R.W.S. 234E Late Filing Fee; Involving Varying Sums, Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

For Appellant: Sri Praveen Nair for Sri Karan TalwarFor Respondent: Sri Swapnil Patil
Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member M.A.Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 (Arising out of ITA Nos.64 & 65/Hyd/2019) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s. Cosyn Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Formerly known as of Income Tax, CSS Technergy Limited). TDS, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN No.AABCC3628G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri Praveen Nair for Sri Karan Talwar. Revenue by: Sri Swapnil Patil. Date of hearing: 04/02/2022 Date of pronouncement: 16/02/2022…

CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (440 ITR 1) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax