← 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

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

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

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

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

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

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, Dehradun vs. M/S Kanatal Resorts & Spa P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 5579/DEL/2015[2009-2010]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalma No. 3/Ddn/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 &

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)

Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 16.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 16.01.2026 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This Revenue’s miscellaneous application MA No. 3/DDN/2022 filed u/s 254(2) of the Act, seeks to recall/rectify the tribunal’s order dated 28.10.2021 dismissing it’s main appeal ... position. We thus treat our impugned order dated 28.10.2021 as suffering from an apparent mistake which stands recalled in very terms. This Revenue’s miscellaneous application MA No. 3/DDN/2022 is accepted. 4. Learned counsel next invites our attention to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion at page 5 para

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tecpro System Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 521/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT- DR
Section 31

both the A.Ys are dismissed. 7. The appeals filed by the Revenue however, are hereby dismissed with the liberty to the Revenue to file miscellaneous application for recall of this order once the assessee is declared that it is out of the purview of IBC proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tecpro System Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 520/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT- DR
Section 31

both the A.Ys are dismissed. 7. The appeals filed by the Revenue however, are hereby dismissed with the liberty to the Revenue to file miscellaneous application for recall of this order once the assessee is declared that it is out of the purview of IBC proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Dr. C. Vijayabaskar, Pudukottai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly

ITA 591/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

This appeal was originally disposed of by the Coordinate Bench, vide its order dated 28.02.2025. Subsequently, the assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application submitting that the Tribunal did not adjudicate ITA Nos.589 to 591/Chny/2023 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) Dr.C. Vijayabaskar :: 2 :: the ground(s) raised by the assessee objecting ... action of restricting the disallowance of quarry expenses and unaccounted sales of blue metal. The above said miscellaneous application was numbered as M.A. Nos. 63-65/Chny/2025. Accordingly, the Tribunal, vide order dated 25.07.2025 allowed the said Miscellaneous Applications, recalled the above said order for limited purpose of adjudicating

Dr. C. Vijayabaskar, Pudukottai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly

ITA 590/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

This appeal was originally disposed of by the Coordinate Bench, vide its order dated 28.02.2025. Subsequently, the assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application submitting that the Tribunal did not adjudicate ITA Nos.589 to 591/Chny/2023 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) Dr.C. Vijayabaskar :: 2 :: the ground(s) raised by the assessee objecting ... action of restricting the disallowance of quarry expenses and unaccounted sales of blue metal. The above said miscellaneous application was numbered as M.A. Nos. 63-65/Chny/2025. Accordingly, the Tribunal, vide order dated 25.07.2025 allowed the said Miscellaneous Applications, recalled the above said order for limited purpose of adjudicating

Dr. C. Vijayabaskar, Pudukottai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly

ITA 589/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

This appeal was originally disposed of by the Coordinate Bench, vide its order dated 28.02.2025. Subsequently, the assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application submitting that the Tribunal did not adjudicate ITA Nos.589 to 591/Chny/2023 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) Dr.C. Vijayabaskar :: 2 :: the ground(s) raised by the assessee objecting ... action of restricting the disallowance of quarry expenses and unaccounted sales of blue metal. The above said miscellaneous application was numbered as M.A. Nos. 63-65/Chny/2025. Accordingly, the Tribunal, vide order dated 25.07.2025 allowed the said Miscellaneous Applications, recalled the above said order for limited purpose of adjudicating

Shri Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Jodhpur

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

ITA 158/JODH/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blei.T.A No.158/Jodh/2011 (Assessment Year : 2008-09)

Section 69

MITHA LAL MEENA: This appeal in ITA No. 158/Jodh/2011 in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09 has been recalled by allowing the miscellaneous application no. 1/Jodh/2013 of the assessee vide Tribunal order dated 08.10.2014 for adjudication of ground no. 5, regarding confirmation of addition

M/S Maa Travels, Bangalore vs. ACIT(OSD) Ward-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 751/KOL/2024[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.751/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) M/S Maa Travels, Vs Acit (Osd), Ward-1(1), Kolkata No.399/A, 1St Stage, 3Rd Phase, West Of Chord Road, Manjunath Nagar, Bangalore-560010 Pan No. :Aatfm 2475 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.01.2024 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Is Noticed That This Appeal Was Originally Disposed Off On 10/12/2024. None Had Appeared. The Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application For Recalling Of The Order Dated 09/06/2025 & The Assessee Represented & The Tribunal Was Pleased To Recall The Order. The Appeal Was Originally Posted For Hearing On 19/11/2025. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing On 19/11/2025, It Was Adjourned To 20/11/2025 At The Request Of Ld.Ar. Then It Was Adjourned To 02/12/2025 At The Request Of The Ld.Dr. On 02/12/2025 The Ar Submitted That He Would File The Necessary Paper Book, However, Till Today No Paper Book Has Been Filed. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing Today No One Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Consequently, This Appeal Being Heard Ex-Parte.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

assessment year 2015-2016. 2. It is noticed that this appeal was originally disposed off on 10/12/2024. None had appeared. The assessee filed a miscellaneous application for recalling of the order dated 09/06/2025 and the assessee represented and the Tribunal was pleased to recall the order. The appeal was originally

ACIT (It)- Circle, New Delhi vs. Air France, Delhi

ITA 5311/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 250

Court in case of Director of Income Tax Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2017) 78 taxmann.com 1 (Del.). 6. Proceeding further, he submitted, the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue against the appellate order passed by the Tribunal in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 has been dismissed

ACIT, Delhi vs. Air France, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5310/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 250

Court in case of Director of Income Tax Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2017) 78 taxmann.com 1 (Del.). 6. Proceeding further, he submitted, the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue against the appellate order passed by the Tribunal in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 has been dismissed

Air France, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1 (1) (10, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5206/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 250

Court in case of Director of Income Tax Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2017) 78 taxmann.com 1 (Del.). 6. Proceeding further, he submitted, the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue against the appellate order passed by the Tribunal in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 has been dismissed

Air France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5205/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 250

Court in case of Director of Income Tax Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2017) 78 taxmann.com 1 (Del.). 6. Proceeding further, he submitted, the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue against the appellate order passed by the Tribunal in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 has been dismissed

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2954/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

decided considering the following records placed on record: 1. Decision of the apex court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell & U. K. Paints. 2. Miscellaneous Application filed by Revenue before the apex court 3. CBDT's Instruction No. 1 of 2023 dated 23-08-2023 As is evident the cross ... settled by the decision of the apex court in the case of AbhisarBuildwell and U.K. paints (supra) and the revenue's Miscellaneous application was disposed off by observing as under 4.1.1. Against the judgment dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (impru

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2953/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

decided considering the following records placed on record: 1. Decision of the apex court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell & U. K. Paints. 2. Miscellaneous Application filed by Revenue before the apex court 3. CBDT's Instruction No. 1 of 2023 dated 23-08-2023 As is evident the cross ... settled by the decision of the apex court in the case of AbhisarBuildwell and U.K. paints (supra) and the revenue's Miscellaneous application was disposed off by observing as under 4.1.1. Against the judgment dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (impru

Rational Business Corporation Pvt Ltd, Sonipat vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 4403/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd 305 ITR 225 (SC), some relevant portions need to be extracted: “In the instant case, miscellaneous application came to be filed by the assessee under sub-section (2) of section 254 stating therein that a decision of the 'Jurisdictional Court', i.e., the High

Rational Business Corporation Pvt Ltd, Sonipat vs. DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 4402/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd 305 ITR 225 (SC), some relevant portions need to be extracted: “In the instant case, miscellaneous application came to be filed by the assessee under sub-section (2) of section 254 stating therein that a decision of the 'Jurisdictional Court', i.e., the High

Jamshed Alam, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 32, Kolkata

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

ITA 2379/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2379/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Jamshed Alam, Vs Dcit, Circle-32, Kolkata 108, Park Street, Park Circus Kolkata, West Bengal-700017 Pan No. :Acupa 0330 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sunil Surana, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Anup Biswas, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 10.10.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed By The Ld.Cit(A) On Account Of Delay Of 66 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No.21 Of 2022 In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020, Dated 10.01.2022, Wherein The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed To Exclude The Period Of Limitation For The Period As Mentioned In The Said Judgment On Account Of Covid-19. The Relevant Observations Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Are As Under :- 4. The Present Miscellaneous Application Has Been Filed By The Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association In The Context Of The Spread Of The New Variant Of The Covid-19 & The Drastic Surge In The Number Of Covid Cases Across The Country.

For Respondent: Dr. Anup Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 138

account of delay of 66 days. In this regard, ld. AR drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, dated 10.01.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to exclude ... said judgment on account of Covid-19. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under :- 4. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association in the context of the spread of the new variant of the COVID

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 2767/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)

with appropriate risk involved. Accordingly, we the ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.” 8. 2. He submitted that a miscellaneous application filed on this issue has been decided against assessee and, thus, this order in the present scenario has attained finality