“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

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

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

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

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

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

C.L.Agarwal Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 903/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 903/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 C.L. Agarwal Charitable Trust,…...………Appellant 11A/1, Sunny Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019 [Pan:Aaatc2106R] -Vs.- Assistant Director Of Income Tax,.……...Respondent Centralized Processing Centre

case, I dismiss the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn with the liberty to the assessee to get the appeal revived by filing necessary miscellaneous application if the assessee is not successful in the VSVS-24, for any reason, whatsoever. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Tarun Koley, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 27(3), Haldia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2228/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2228/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tarun Koley,………………………………...………Appellant S/O. Manindra Nath Koley, Parbatipur, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur-721636, W.B. [Pan:Aeypk0244C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-27(3), Haldia, Basudevpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Purba Mednipur-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri Sonal Jalan, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 17, 2025 O R D E R

Section 91

case, I dismiss the appeal of the assessee with the liberty to the assessee to get the appeal revived by filing necessary miscellaneous application if the assessee is not successful in the VSVS-24, for any reason, whatsoever. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order

Juri Hema Mahanta, Guwahati vs. ITO Mumbai 30 (1) (5), Kautaliya Bhavan Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6431/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agarwalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 6431/Mum/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Juri Hema Mahanta, Ito, Ward 30(1)(5) Ward No. 51, 24, Zakir Hussian Path Mumbai बनाम Guwahati, Assam,Pin: 781036 Vs Pan : Ayqpm 6031M] अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी /Respondent

Section 254(1)

assessee under DTVSV-2024 do not get finally settled for any reason whatsoever, then both the parties are at liberty to prefer Miscellaneous Application before this Tribunal for restoration of this appeal or any further direction and in such event, the appeal shall get restored. The Assessing Officer is directed

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5919/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92D

this comparable was prayed for rejection by the assessee, this was rejected by the ITAT as per order dated 21 May 2018. In the miscellaneous application dated 27 May 2019 the ITAT recalled order to that extent for adjudication on comparability of this comparable. 017. The argument of the learned

Shri Hasmukh Bhogilal Shah, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1320/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 250

assessee under DVSV-2024 does not get finally settled for any reason whatsoever, then both the parties are at liberty to prefer Miscellaneous Application before this Tribunal for restoration of the appeal or any further direction and in such event, the appeal shall get restored. The Assessing Officer is directed

Krishna Kumar Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 25(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 987/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Krishna Kumar Tekriwal Ward 25(4), Kolkata, 20/1, 1St Floor, 2, Gariahat Road, (South), Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Vs. 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Kolkata - 700019 Dakshin, Kolkata - 700068 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Abvpt7333F Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal,Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 04.03.2024 For The Ay 2015-16. 02. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Pointed Out That The Assessee Has Already Gone Into Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 ('Vsvs 2024' Scheme) By Filing Form No.1, With The Competent Authority & Therefore, Prayed Before The Bench That The Assessee May Be Allowed To Withdraw This Appeal To Which The Ld. Dr Did Not Oppose.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal,Addl. CIT (DR)

oppose. 03. Hence, we are dismissing the appeal as withdrawn with a liberty to the assessee to get the appeal revived by filing necessary miscellaneous application if the assessee is not successful in the VSVS-24, for any reason, whatsoever. Krishna Kumar Tekriwal 04. In the result, the appeal

Faurecia Systemes Dechappement, Pune vs. Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the respective assessees are dismissed as ‘Withdrawn’

ITA 1248/PUN/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreita No.292/Pun/2022 & Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Harshad KondeFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L Pathade, CIT DR

applications of assessee(s) are rejected under Vivas Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 for any reason, the assessee(s) are at liberty to move Miscellaneous Applications for recalling of the appeals in accordance with law. 4. In the result, the appeals of the respective assessees are dismissed as ‘Withdrawn’. Order pronounced

Faurecia Interieur Industrie, Pune vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the respective assessees are dismissed as ‘Withdrawn’

ITA 1246/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreita No.292/Pun/2022 & Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Harshad KondeFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L Pathade, CIT DR

Faurecia Interieur Industrie, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ( Int. Tax), Circle -1, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the respective assessees are dismissed as ‘Withdrawn’

ITA 292/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreita No.292/Pun/2022 & Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Harshad KondeFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L Pathade, CIT DR

Faurecia Interieur Industrie, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ( Int. Tax), Pune

In the result, the appeals of the respective assessees are dismissed as ‘Withdrawn’

ITA 252/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreita No.292/Pun/2022 & Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Harshad KondeFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L Pathade, CIT DR

Bharatsinh Valabhai Parmar, Surat vs. ITO(Int. Tax.), Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 996/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 996/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Bharatsinh Valabhai Parmar, Ito, 23, Parmar House, Swaminarayan Circle 1(2)(3), बनाम Road, Near Sardar Bridge, Adajan, Surat. Vs Surat. [Pan : Aeypp 5432 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)

Dr Keshavbhai Patel Valsad Taluka Niratadgol Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Valsad

ITA 1293/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Section 254(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, सूरत न्यायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL

Shri Thakorbhai Chandubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1289/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 250

Sandip Kumar Keshari, Asansol vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 3(1) Sandip Kumar Keshari Aaykar Bhavan, Rajpara, P.O. Raniganj, Opposite-Ramakrishna School Paschim Bardhman-713347 Vs. P.O. Asansol, West Bengal Asansol-713305, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cqupk2724F Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhro Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

submitted that this was a Covid Period and in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW(c) No. 3 of 2020, the period of limitation for filing the return of Sandip Kumar keshari ... Supreme Court has extended all the limitation under the Income Tax Act and also under the other Acts in case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020, which excluded the period till 31st May, 2022, from the period of limitation. Therefore, the arguments

Yum Restaurant India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14,

ITA 7770/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.5169/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2011-12) आअसं.4248/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) आअसं.7770/िद"ी/2018(िन.व. 2013-14) आअसं.7369 & 7566/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: Ms. Mansha BhallaFor Respondent: S/Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR) & Ravinder Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 144C

assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS. [Re. M/s. Nannusamy Mohan

DCIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi vs. Yum Restaurant India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14,

ITA 5547/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Mansha BhallaFor Respondent: S/Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR) & Ravinder Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 144C

Chiragkumar Vithalbhai Dobariya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Surat

ITA 756/SRT/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2025AY 2001-02

Section 254(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, सूरत न्यायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL

Chiragkumar Vithalbhai Dobariya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Surat

ITA 755/SRT/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2025AY 2001-02

Section 254(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, सूरत न्यायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL

Rashminbhai Jigarbhai Halani, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward -1(3) (4) Current Jurisdiction- ITO Ward 1(3) (1) Surat, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 630/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 250

Resonance Eduventures Limited, Kota vs. ACIT DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 672/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (Thr. V.C)&For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 234DSection 250

said Act on the ground of not mentioning any DIN. The Hon’ble court held as under: “6. The Revenue filed miscellaneous application seeking for rectification of the said order. Once again the Tribunal has undertaken a factual exercise and in fact, raised a specific query to the Revenue