← All Phrases

“miscellaneous application”

AppealsSection 254(2)Section 254(2)1,501 judgments

The decision most relied on for miscellaneous application is 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (295 ITR 466), cited in 35 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on miscellaneous application

254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT
295 ITR 466 · 2007 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record that prejudices a party is rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Act.

CIT v. Birla Janahit Trust
208 ITR 372 · 1994 · High Court
17
citing judgments

Expenditure on salaries and miscellaneous expenses for carrying out the trust's objectives is considered an application of income for charitable purposes. Liabilities for employee benefits, such as gratuity and leave encashment, are accrued liabilities even if payable in the future.

Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services
10 SCC 136 · 2013 · Reported
12
citing judgments

A party can challenge the maintainability of an appeal, even if the delay in filing cross-objections is condoned due to bonafide reasons.

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India
238 CTR 353 · Supreme Court
10
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that the provisions for obtaining approval from the Chief Commissioner of Customs and Excise (CoD) had outlived their utility, leading to the recall of previous orders that relied on such approvals.

CIT v. State Bank of Hyderabad
382 ITR 499 · 2016 · Reported
10
citing judgments

A Tribunal order recalling an earlier order that was dismissed for want of condonation of delay approval is interlocutory and does not adjudicate on merits.

Judgments citing miscellaneous application

Nimmagadda Gopichand, Vijayawada vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

ITA 743/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

/Viz/2025 dated 06.02.2025 had upheld the additions made by the A.O and dismissed the appeal. 8. Thereafter, the Tribunal, on a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, viz. M.A. No. 04/VIZ/2025, dated 08.08/.2025 had recalled its aforesaid order for the limited issue, i.e., the Ground ... directed to tax the disputed cash deposits at normal rate ie., @ 30% instead of 60%. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.” 10. The assessee, aggrieved with the order

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 903/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat. Considering The Same, The Order Passed By Itat Was Recalled & The Appeal Of The Assessee Fixed For Adjudication Afresh On Merits, Vide Order In Ma No.94/Ahd/2025, Dated 18.12.2025. The Present Appeal, Accordingly, Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the PCIT in his order passed u/s.263 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application pointing out the fact that a consequential order had been passed by the AO dated 31.08.2016, copy of which is placed before the ITAT

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata vs. Mgr Agro Products Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2855/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Amit Paul, New Delhi vs. National Feceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 5088/DEL/2025[2018 - 19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshamit Paul, Vs. National Faceless Flat No. Am-504, Abhimanyu Assessment Centre, Apartments, Vasundhara Delhi Enclave, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagpp5220K

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

assessee before the ld CIT(A) on 05.05.2022 against the assessment order dated 16.07.2021. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 In Re: Cognizance ... Extension of Limitation with Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 had observed that if the appeal before any competent authority that were due to be filed during the period 15.03.2020 till

E Factor Adventure Tourism Private Limited, Delhi vs. The DCIT, CC-13, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3006/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.3006/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2017-18) E Factor Adventure Tourism P. Ltd., 101 A, Kundan Kutir, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi 110014 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aabce-7871-R बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Central Circle-13, New Delhi 110055 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By: Shri S.K Chaturvedi, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-26, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 06.03.2025, For Ay 2017-18 In Proceedings U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S.K Chaturvedi, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

XXXX 16. In so far as the petitioner’s contention on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the Miscellaneous Application is concerned, it appears that the position in law is well settled. The jurisdiction as conferred under sub Section(2) of Section 254 is akin to the jurisdiction conferred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata vs. Adhunik Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1069/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Initially the appeal was dismissed on account of low tax effect. The Revenue subsequently filed a Miscellaneous Application stating that the case, even though having low tax effect, was falling under the exceptional clause (h) of para no. 3.1 of CBDT circular

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7798/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

before the Tribunal. By order dated 29.11.2013, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals and restored various issues for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, pursuant to a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, even the issue relating to interest expenditure was restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), culminating

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7797/MUM/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

before the Tribunal. By order dated 29.11.2013, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals and restored various issues for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, pursuant to a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, even the issue relating to interest expenditure was restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), culminating

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7796/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

before the Tribunal. By order dated 29.11.2013, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals and restored various issues for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, pursuant to a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, even the issue relating to interest expenditure was restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), culminating

Ajay Jojo, Silchar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Silchar

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

ITA 151/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am (Through : Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.151/Gty/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-2021) Ajay Jojo, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Silchar. House No.07, Vivekananda Housing Complex Society, Silchar, Assam-788005 Pan No. : Aucpj 0016 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mody, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR

account of covid period limitation. It was the submission that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extended the period of limitation from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 stand the excluded for the purpose ... filed by the assessee on 30/03/2021 as the return filed within time in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. A copy of this

Global Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(Exem), Ward-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3463/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’Bleglobal Education Trust, Ito (Exemption) Ward 1(3), 9, 1St Floor, Brijwasi Building Mumbai Vs. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai 400 063. Pan : Aaatg8496J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta
Section 10(11)Section 11Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

actual delay was of 1115 days and after giving the benefit of the exclusion provided by the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 the resultant day was about 1079 days. The learned CIT(A) has however, refused to condone the delay on the ground

Vijay Tejbahadur Singh Legal Representative for Rekha Vijaykumar Singh, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 1019/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250

Singh s. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– 2. NFAC has failed to appreciate that assessee has filed statement of facts, grounds of appeal, miscellaneous application for production of additional evidence and miscellaneous application for condonation of delay for 2140 days of delay and all such filing has been ignored

Jamiat Ulama-E-Relief Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the miscellaneous applications as well as the appeal filed by the

ITA 2249/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Omprakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ma No.531/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) (Arising Out Of Ita No.2249/Mum/2022) & M/S. Jamiat Ulema E Relief Cit (Exemption) Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Foundation, Imamwada Compound, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Building, Opp. B.I.T. Chawl No.1, Vs. Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Imamwada Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 009 Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – 400 026 Pan No.Aabtj5386R (Applicant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 12A

Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR) : 23.01.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee/applicant for recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 23.12.2022 in ITA No.2249/M/2022 relevant to Assessment Year ... infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(E) the appeal of the applicant/assessee trust was dismissed. 5. The applicant/assessee trust has filed the present miscellaneous application for recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 23.12.2022 stating that there is mistake apparent from the record of the order

Manoj R. Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is hereby remanded back to the Ld

ITA 4889/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Manoj R. Maheshwari, Income Tax Officer, 16(1)(4), Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 318/319, Tardeo Ac Market, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 034 Pan:Acapm7018E (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

earlier occasion the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution and had recalled the same on the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee. Though the assessee has raised several grounds, the Ld. AR restricted to adjudicate only ground No.2 on addition/disallowance towards Short Term Capital

ITO, Ward-1, Bhilwara vs. Shri Kamal Kishore Agarwal, Bhilwara

In the result M.A. No. 05/Jodh/2019 is allowed and the appeal in ITA No

ITA 381/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blem.A. No. 05/Jodh/2019 (A/O Ita No. 381/Jodh/2018) & Income Tax Officer, Shri Kamal Kishore Agarwal, Ward-1, Prop. M/S. Synthetics, Bhilwara. B-42 To 46, Bhilwara Textile Market, Bhilwara-311001. Pan No. Abzpa6445P Assessee By None. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit-Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Miscellaneous Application Is Instituted At The Instant Of The Department Against The Tribunal Order In Ita No. 381/Jodh/2018 Dated 11- 09-2019 In Respect With Assessment Years 2012-13 For Recalling The Said Appeal Which Was Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect. 2. The Ld. Addl. Cit (Dr) For The Department Submitted That At The Time Of Adjudication Of The Revenue Appeal In Ita No. 381/Jodh/2018 In Respect With Assessment Years 2012-13 The Appeal Of The Department Was Dismissed On Tax Effect By The Hon’Ble Tribunal In View Of The Enhanced Monetary Limits By The Cbdt Circular No. 17 Of 2019 Dated 08.08.2019 As The Revised Monitory Limit

Section 54F

Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR Revenue by Date of Hearing 07.01.2026. Date of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. ORDER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: The captioned miscellaneous application is instituted at the instant of the department against the Tribunal order in ITA No. 381/Jodh/2018 dated 11- 09-2019 in respect with Assessment

Rajeshwari Maddi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 72/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.72/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Rajeshwari Maddi The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 020. Ward-4(2), Hyderabad. Vs. Telangana. Pin – 500 004. Pan Ctipm9854K Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri V Ganesh Bhujangarao Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri V Ganesh BhujangaraoFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR
Section 144

assessee in Para no.4 of the Order as under: “4. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant contents of Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. We find that, the order of the Tribunal dated 12.03.2025 was passed ex-parte in the absence of the assessee. Considering

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

Tribunal which constituted, mistake apparent on record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed of that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA NO.1032/Kol/2012 on 27-07-2016 and recalled the order of the tribunal with regard to the issue

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1696/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

Tribunal which constituted, mistake apparent on record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed of that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/ 2016 arising out of ITA NO. 1032/Kol/2012 on 27-07-2016 and recalled the order of the tribunal with regard

M/S. Coal India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1406/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

Tribunal which constituted, mistake apparent on record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed of that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/ 2016 arising out of ITA NO. 1032/Kol/2012 on 27-07-2016 and recalled the order of the tribunal with regard

DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Coal India Limited, Kolkata

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

Tribunal which constituted, mistake apparent on record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed of that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA NO.1032/Kol/2012 on 27-07-2016 and recalled the order of the tribunal with regard to the issue