← 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

Sri Barun Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2009/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 147Section 250Section 91(2)Section 91(3)Section 92Section 92(2)

withdrawn. However, if the subsequent facts warrant that the appeal should be heard on merits, the assessee shall be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration of the appeal. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court

Mohammad Parwaiz Alam, Bihar vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 250/PAT/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.249&250/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Parwaiz Alam………………………………..………….……Appellant Alam Mansion Ararai, Basantpur, Ward-21, Araria, Bihar-854311. [Pan: Agapa6710F] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Issues Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 7 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeals & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing On Different Dates. However, An Application Has Been Filed By The Ar Of The Assessee Stating That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Tax Dispute Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (Dtvsv)

Section 250

condition that if somehow, for any reason whatsoever the assessee failed to avail the benefit of DTVSV scheme, 2024, then the assessee may file miscellaneous application for revival of both the appeals before this Tribunal which may be considered accordingly. 5. With the above observations, both the appeals

Mohammad Parwaiz Alam, Bihar vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 249/PAT/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.249&250/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Parwaiz Alam………………………………..………….……Appellant Alam Mansion Ararai, Basantpur, Ward-21, Araria, Bihar-854311. [Pan: Agapa6710F] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Issues Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 7 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeals & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing On Different Dates. However, An Application Has Been Filed By The Ar Of The Assessee Stating That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Tax Dispute Under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (Dtvsv)

Section 250

condition that if somehow, for any reason whatsoever the assessee failed to avail the benefit of DTVSV scheme, 2024, then the assessee may file miscellaneous application for revival of both the appeals before this Tribunal which may be considered accordingly. 5. With the above observations, both the appeals

M/S. Newjet Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2000/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Bench That The Assessee May Be Allowed To Withdraw The Said Appeal With The Liberty To Request For Restoration Of The Matter In Case The Assessee Is Not Successful In Settling The Matter For Some Reason.It Is Seen That As Per The Vsvs The Assessee Has To Withdraw His Appeal As Per The Scheme.

scheme. 2. Accordingly, we are dismissing this appeal 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- 2024, for any reason, whatsoever. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Open Solutions Software Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, C.R. Building, New Delhi

Accordingly, we direct the ld TPO to exclude the same from the final list of comparables. Hence, the ground No. 10(b) raised by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 6692/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmafiserv India Private Limited Vs. Addl Commissioner Of (As Successor Of Open Solutions Income Tax, Software Services Pvt. Ltd.) Special Range-7, New Delhi Trion Business Park, Nagar Road, Vadgaonsheri, Pune, Maharashtra, 411014, India (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccr0787L

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

6692/Del/2018 dated 29.09.2020, wherein, in para 12, this comparable company Persistent Systems Ltd was considered. This finding was later recalled in a miscellaneous application vide MA No. 250/Del/2020 dated 18.10.2022 and hence the present recalled proceedings before us. In the meanwhile, the revenue preferred an appeal before

M/S. Mashreq Bank Psc., Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) - 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1342/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadangshri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 37Section 44C

partly allowing the appeal. However, the major issue relating to allowance of head office expenses was decided against the assessee. Subsequently, assessee filed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of the order on the ground that while deciding the issue the Tribunal had not taken note of its decision in assessee ... case in assessment years 1998-99 and 2001-02, though, cited by the assessee. Allowing the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, the Tribunal recalled the earlier appellate order for the limited purpose of deciding ground nos. 1 and 4. After the appeal order was recalled, as aforesaid, the Revenue

Kalpesh Pandharinath Aglave, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 834/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bijayananda Pruseth & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Physical Hearing) Kalpesh Pandharinath Aglave, Vs. The Ito, 193, Vishwakarma Society, Ward – 2(3)(2), Bhaiyanagar Punagam, Surat – Surat 394211 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aispa8913G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

assessee under DTVSV, 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

Neena Kumari Tiwari, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(8), Surat

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

ITA 824/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Neena Kumari Tiwari, Vs. The Ito, B-701, Rutvan Apartment, Ward – 1(3)(8), Gangeshwar Temple, Adajan, Surat Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amlpt4436H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

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

Shri Alpeshbhai Shamjibhai Kalavadia, Vapi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vapi

ITA 1205/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
Section 254(1)

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

DCIT Central Circle 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Pinac Stock Brokers Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 858/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R N Dsouza, CIT.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 68

been deleted by the Tribunal, computation mechanism fails in the penalty proceedings. Thus Ld. CIT(A) has considered the quantum order as well as Miscellaneous Application order passed by the Tribunal and deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Therefore the penalty order passed has no legs to stand ... appellant against the addition of Rs 52,00,000/-confirmed by the Hon'bie ITAT, as discussed in para 5.1 (iii) above, a Miscellaneous Application was filed by the assessee claiming that the Hon'ble ITAT has inadvertently overlooked documents in respect to the loan received from M/s. GGF Mercantile

Ivy Comptech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Ivy Competech Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaac18884K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nageswara Rao, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Nageswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned assessment orders dated 30.08.2022 and 01.09.2022. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.” 7. In view of the above, the appeal of assessee is required to be allowed. 8. We have heard

Harmrrt Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(5), Delhi

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

ITA 2558/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2558/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) Harmeet Singh, El-06, L-Block, Ii Floor, Hari Nagar, New Delhi 110064 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bctps-5058-L बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ward-49(5), New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri S.K. Goyal, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 26.03.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Counsel For The Assessee Stated At Bar That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Issue In Appeal Under Vsvs 2024 & Has Already Filed Form No. 1. He Prayed For Withdrawing The Appeal On Instructions From The Assessee. 3. The Assessee Is Allowed To Withdraw The Appeal As Prayed For.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Goyal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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

Sneha Basu Roy Chowdhury L/H of Late Sumit Basu Roy Chowdhury, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 874/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthy]

oppose. 3. Hence, we are dismissing the appeal 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. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

Navneet Bajaj L/H of Tara Devi Bajaj, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 952/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 4(2)

Hence, we are dismissing both the appeals as withdrawn with the liberty to the assessee to get the appeals revived by filing necessary miscellaneous applications if the assessee is not successful in the VSVS-24, for any reason, whatsoever. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee

Navneet Bajaj L/H of Tara Devi Bajaj, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 951/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 4(2)

Hence, we are dismissing both the appeals as withdrawn with the liberty to the assessee to get the appeals revived by filing necessary miscellaneous applications if the assessee is not successful in the VSVS-24, for any reason, whatsoever. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee

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)

this common order. 2. The captioned appeals were decided vide common order dated 12.03.2024 of the Tribunal. The assessee filed two separate Miscellaneous Applications (MA) against both appeals on the following issues: (i) ITA 4174/Del/2010 - Revenue Appeal: The assessee filed MA for the reason that while adjudicating Ground of Appeal ... dated 19.06.2019 issued for assessment year 2009-20, is deleted and the grounds of appeal No.6 is accordingly allowed. 10. In the result, the miscellaneous application no 354/Del/2024 is allowed" Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2.3 Since both MAs were allowed vide MA Order dated 13.03.2025; therefore, the Registry revived both

Urban Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2152/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Circle 5(1) Urban Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Ae-310, Salt Lake, Sector -1, 1St Chowringhee Square, Floor, Kolkata-700064, Vs. Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu0276G Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rama Choudhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rama Choudhary, DR

appeal as withdrawn with a liberty to the assessee to get the appeal revived by filing necessary Urban Infraproject Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 miscellaneous application if the assessee is not successful in the VSVS-24, for any reason, whatsoever. 04. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Pandora Tie Up Pvt.Ltd., ACIT, C.C-3(3), Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C-3(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 712/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

oppose. 3. Hence, we are dismissing the appeal 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. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

Late Smt. Dayawanti Devi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1263/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Sangeeta Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 425, Jagriti Enclave, Tax, Central-3, Delhi-1100 92 New Delhi Pan No. Aaipb2360E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Gupta, CA & Shri SheryFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, SR. DR
Section 263Section 4

Revenue for any reason whatsoever, the assessee can make a prayer before the Bench for recalling of the order by filing a miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal. The Registry will place such petition before the Bench concerned. 5. In view of the aforesaid observations, we dismiss appeal with liberty

The Ayali Kalan Co-Op Agriculture Multi, Ludhiana vs. Income Tac Officer, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80P(2)

dated 29.01.2016 passed for assessment year 2017-18. It is pertinent to note that this appeal was earlier decided by this Tribunal. However, a Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 83/CHD/2016 was filed by the assessee and the appeal was restored to its original number. A.Y.2009-10 2 2. A perusal