← 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

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 Pune, Pune vs. Shankar Ramchandra Earthmovers Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1085/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Prathamesh Borkar

instant appeal without going into merits of 3 Shankar Ramchandra Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. the case. However, the Department is at liberty to file the Miscellaneous Application, if the tax effect is found to be more than the prescribed limit of Rs.60,00,000/-. 4. In the result, the appeal

Aravind Mahankali, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Kurnool

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as 'withdrawn'

ITA 153/HYD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2015-16 Aravind Mahankali, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Kurnool. Pan : Ajkpm8155H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pruthvesh, Advocate Appeared For Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Pruthvesh, Advocate appeared for Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada – CIT-DR

Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2024 by the Revenue for whatsoever may be the reason, then the assessee shall be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal within the time limit prescribed under the Act to reinstate assessee's appeal. Ordered accordingly. 4. In the result, the appeal

Bucher Hydraulics Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 799/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmabucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. 6, Sector-5, Imt Circle-4(2), Manesar, Gurugaon, New Delhi Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs5991H

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mathew Jacob, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 91(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

Sudeshna Devi, Shamli vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Shamli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1080/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1080/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2010-11) Smt. Sudeshna Devi, C/O Prem Prakash, 183/2 North Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh-251001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Gtmps-4972-N बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ward 1(5), Shamli, Uttar Pradesh अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 12/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 22.11.2017, For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Counsel For The Assessee Stated At Bar That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Issue In Appeal Under Vsvs 2024. He Placed On Record Copy Of Form No. 1 Filed Under The Scheme & Submitted That Form No. 2 From The Department Is Awaited. He Prayed For Withdrawing The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is Allowed To Withdraw The Appeal As Prayed For.

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, 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

Mmtc-Pamp India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 1023/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1023/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2015-16) Mmtc-Pamp India P. Ltd., Plot No. 221, Ground Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, S.O Tehkhand South East Delhi-110020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aafcm-3576-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 6, C.R Building, Ito, I.P Estate, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Deepti Gupta, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 12.01.2024, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Counsel For The Assessee Stated At Bar That The Assessee Has Opted To Settle The Issue In Appeal Under Vsvs 2024. He Placed On Record Copy Of Form No. 1 Filed Under The Scheme & Submitted That Form No. 2 From The Department Is Awaited. He Prayed For Withdrawing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. Deepti Gupta, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, 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

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T., Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sawana, Adv., Ms. Neha Sharma & Shri Apurva Chudhry, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, D/R
Section 80I

sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The captioned appeals were decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 19/10/2016. Subsequently, the assessee filed miscellaneous application and the Tribunal in M.A. No. 10 to 13/Mum/2017, vide its order dated 14/07/2017, considered the following issues and decided as under:- “2. It was pointed

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3006/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, DR &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(xii)

Tribunal for AY 2010-11 on 24.8.2022 in ITA No.3344/Mum/2016 and in that order, identical issue was adjudicated. Subsequently, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application pointing out that there are mistakes apparent from record in the order passed on the issue of disallowance of expenses incurred on promotional activities ... Tribunal did not adjudicate the alternative ground raised by the assessee for allowing the claim u/s 37(1) of the Act. The above said miscellaneous application was numbered as M A No.292/Mum/2022 and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal on 15.6.2023. Hence the decision taken by the Tribunal

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2522/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(xii)

Tribunal for AY 2010-11 on 24.8.2022 in ITA No.3344/Mum/2016 and in that order, identical issue was adjudicated. Subsequently, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application pointing out that there are mistakes apparent from record in the order passed on the issue of disallowance of expenses incurred on promotional activities ... Tribunal did not adjudicate the alternative ground raised by the assessee for allowing the claim u/s 37(1) of the Act. The above said miscellaneous application was numbered as M A No.292/Mum/2022 and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal on 15.6.2023. Hence the decision taken by the Tribunal

Sree Rajendra Suri Gurumandir Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2020/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 272A(2)(e)Section 275(1)(c)

Covid period. Penalty order could not able to be passed and the period of limitation has been suspended by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 and in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Moto WP No.(C) No.3 of 2020 in Re: Cognizance of Limitation ... this period, there was Covid’19 and the Limitation Act has been suspended as rightly pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Applications cited (supra). Being so, the time limit will commence from 28.2.2022 and in the present case, penalty order has been passed on 5.3.2022 which

SMC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR &
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

u/s.80IA of the Act has been decided against the assessee for A.Yrs. 2002-03 to 2005-06 and since the time limit for filing Miscellaneous Application had lapsed for the assessee, the assessee could not get the benefit of deduction despite the fact of the order of this Tribunal

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1533/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

Kedar Infrastructure vs. ITO in ITA Nos.228 to 233/PUN/2023 order dated 05.04.2023, wherein, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee and even the Miscellaneous Application against the above order filed by the assessee was also dismissed in March, 2024. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Tribunal

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2 Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1532/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

Kedar Infrastructure vs. ITO in ITA Nos.228 to 233/PUN/2023 order dated 05.04.2023, wherein, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee and even the Miscellaneous Application against the above order filed by the assessee was also dismissed in March, 2024. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Tribunal

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1531/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

Kedar Infrastructure vs. ITO in ITA Nos.228 to 233/PUN/2023 order dated 05.04.2023, wherein, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee and even the Miscellaneous Application against the above order filed by the assessee was also dismissed in March, 2024. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Tribunal

Kedar Associates, Pune vs. TDS Ward 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1530/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1530 To 1533/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-2, Pune. 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aabfk6598A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. At The Outset, We Find That There Is Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. Ld. Ar Furnished An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons Of Delay In Filing Of These Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Duly Supported By An Affidavit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious Objection Against The Delay Condonation Request Made By The Assessee. Accordingly, The Delay Of 400 Days In Filing Of These Appeals Is Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1530/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2) For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze
Section 200ASection 234E

Kedar Infrastructure vs. ITO in ITA Nos.228 to 233/PUN/2023 order dated 05.04.2023, wherein, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee and even the Miscellaneous Application against the above order filed by the assessee was also dismissed in March, 2024. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Tribunal

Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Kolkata vs. Majestic Marcom Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1281/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Majestic Marcom Private Income Tax Officer Limited Ward, 4(1) 7,Red Cross Place, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7 Left Side Cabin Of Btm, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Dalhousie, Kolkata-700001, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcm4584F Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR

appeal or this case falls in any of the exceptions provided in the instruction, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for revival of this appeal. Such application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act. 05. In the result

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Dahisar Traders Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objection by the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 339/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 339/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016

effect is more or this case falls in any of the exceptions provided in this Instruction. Then Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for revival of this appeal. Such application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act. 4. Since I have dismissed

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Batlivala and Karani Securities India Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

effect is more or this case falls in any of the exceptions provided in this Instruction. Then Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for revival of this appeal. Such application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act. 2 Batlivala And Karani Securities India

Income Tax Officer, Burdwan vs. Kamala Devi Patni, Kalna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1611/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1611/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,……………………..…………Appellant Burdwan, Court Compound, Aayakar Bhawan, Burdwan-713101, West Bengal -Vs.- Kamala Devi Patni,……………………………….Respondent Katiganga, Kalna-713409, West Bengal [Pan: Ajwpp0835H] Appearances By: Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Ankit Jalan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

effect is more or this case falls in any of the exceptions provided in this Instruction. Then Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for revival of this appeal. Such application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act. 4. In the result, the appeal

M/S. India Housing., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-54, Kolkata

In the result, ITA Nos 1218 & 1219/KOL/2023 are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1218/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar & Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

pronouncement : 28/11/2024 O R D E R 2 M.A. No36 & 37 /KOL/21024 ITA No.1218 & 1219 /KOL/2023 India Housing PER BENCH: The assessee filed the miscellaneous applications No. 36 & 37/KOL/2024 arising out of ITA No.1218 & 1219/KOL/2023. It was pointed out that ground No.3 pertaining to the issue of supervision charges, which ... record. Accordingly, we recall our order dated 15/03/2024 in ITA Nos.1218 & 1219/KOL/2023 to decide the issue in ground No.3 afresh. As a result, the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are allowed. ITA No.1218 & 1219/KOL/2023 3. Ground No.3 in both these appeals is recalled vide paragraph 2 above, for deciding

Lakeside Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3119/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Period Prescribed.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri K. R. Subhash
Section 250Section 270A

Appellant to revive the same in case the application filed by the Appellant does not result in settlement of dispute by way of filing miscellaneous application before the Tribunal within the period prescribed. 3. In terms of above the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced