← 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

Addl CIT RG 18(2), Mumbai vs. Metrpolitan Trading Co., Mumbai

ITA 2217/MUM/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: the Hon'ble High Court" 3. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on behalf of the Assessee. On examining the issues raised in the appeal and the order passed by the CIT(A), we proceeded to adjudicate the

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80H

Accordingly, the present appeal preferred by Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Revenue to revive the same by way of filing miscellaneous application within prescribed time in case the appeal falls within the ambit of any of the exceptions carved out from the applicability of the aforesaid

Rajesh Kumar C Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3309/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rajesh Kumar C Jain Ito Ward 42(1)(4), Mumbai Flat No. 09, Surendra Apartment, Dm Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Road, Dahisar (West), 400097 Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Adfpj 0970 N (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Prashant Nagori Respondent By : Shri. Uodal Raj Singh Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

For Appellant: Shri. Prashant NagoriFor Respondent: Shri. Uodal Raj Singh SR DR
Section 250Section 68

Tribunal vide order dated 30.01.2024 had passed the ex parte order, dismissing the appeal of the assessee and the same was recalled in Miscellaneous Application No. 229/Mum/2024, dated 22.11.2024. 3. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in ITA No. 3323/Mum/2023 had decided the appeal

DCIT, Central Circle, 4(3), Kolkata vs. Jivendra Mishra, Kolkata

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

ITA 1108/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Madhumita Das, ACITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250

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. 5. In the result

JCIT (in-Situ), Kolkata vs. Kosc Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1870/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1870/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kosc Industries Private Jcit (In-Situ) Limited, Vs 8Th Floor, Room No.23, P-7, Suite No.101, Stephen House, 56E, Chowringhee Square, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700001 अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Biswas, DR
Section 143(3)

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

Ajay Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 68(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1531/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshajay Sharma, Vs. Ito, H. No. 164, Sector-A, Ward-68(1), Pocket-C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Actps6995D

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Tyagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Poojan Rana, 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. Ajay Sharma 5. In view of the aforesaid observations, we dismiss appeal

Bharat Technologies Auto Components Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1843/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

assessee and also to maintain status quo and not to take any coercive action till the disposal of the MA No.171/2014. A Miscellaneous Application in M.A.No.171 of 2014 in Case No.46 of 1998 was filed and the BIFR once again passed an order directing CBDT to consider the issues ... company from the provisions of Section 80 read with Section 139 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Even though, the assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application against the action of the BIFR, the Hon’ble Single Bench of the Madras High Court was pleased to dismiss the same by order dated

Bharat Technologies Auto Components Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1842/CHNY/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

assessee and also to maintain status quo and not to take any coercive action till the disposal of the MA No.171/2014. A Miscellaneous Application in M.A.No.171 of 2014 in Case No.46 of 1998 was filed and the BIFR once again passed an order directing CBDT to consider the issues ... company from the provisions of Section 80 read with Section 139 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Even though, the assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application against the action of the BIFR, the Hon’ble Single Bench of the Madras High Court was pleased to dismiss the same by order dated

Bharat Technologies Auto Components Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1841/CHNY/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

assessee and also to maintain status quo and not to take any coercive action till the disposal of the MA No.171/2014. A Miscellaneous Application in M.A.No.171 of 2014 in Case No.46 of 1998 was filed and the BIFR once again passed an order directing CBDT to consider the issues ... company from the provisions of Section 80 read with Section 139 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Even though, the assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application against the action of the BIFR, the Hon’ble Single Bench of the Madras High Court was pleased to dismiss the same by order dated

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1088/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No. 1088/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Xerox India Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Vatika Business Park, Circle-27(2), Sector-49, Sohna Road, New Delhi Gurgaon-122018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm8634R Assessee By : Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. & Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.11.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Dcit, Circle-27(2), New Delhi, Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2015 Framed In Consequence To The Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”)-2, New Delhi Directions Dated 18.11.2015, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

instant appeal as the tribunal’s first round order dated 19.10.2020 had not decided the same. This prompted the assessee to file its Miscellaneous Application MA No. 271/Del/2020. The Revenue is indeed very fair in not disputing 2 Xerox India Ltd. the fact that the tribunal order dated ... assessee’s said Miscellaneous Application has recalled its earlier order to this limited extent. 4. Both the learned representatives take us to the assessee’s 8th and 9th substantive grounds in this factual backdrop reading as under: “8. That on facts and in law the AO/DRP erred in making/upholding

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Judgment dated 20.07.2022” (supra) has held that the Explanation inserted to Section 14A is applicable prospectively. However, the same Bench, while deciding the Miscellaneous Applications (supra), preferred on behalf of the appellants subsequently has concluded that the decision of the Delhi High Court is not binding the Tribunal. Having taken

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Judgment dated 20.07.2022” (supra) has held that the Explanation inserted to Section 14A is applicable prospectively. However, the same Bench, while deciding the Miscellaneous Applications (supra), preferred on behalf of the appellants subsequently has concluded that the decision of the Delhi High Court is not binding the Tribunal. Having taken

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 199/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Judgment dated 20.07.2022” (supra) has held that the Explanation inserted to Section 14A is applicable prospectively. However, the same Bench, while deciding the Miscellaneous Applications (supra), preferred on behalf of the appellants subsequently has concluded that the decision of the Delhi High Court is not binding the Tribunal. Having taken

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Judgment dated 20.07.2022” (supra) has held that the Explanation inserted to Section 14A is applicable prospectively. However, the same Bench, while deciding the Miscellaneous Applications (supra), preferred on behalf of the appellants subsequently has concluded that the decision of the Delhi High Court is not binding the Tribunal. Having taken

Delta Air Lines, Inc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshdri / Ms. Amulya
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

that the issue is covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case. The ld DR further argued that the Miscellaneous Application raised by the assessee against the said order has also been rejected and therefore the decision is binding on the assessee

M/S Model Exim, Kanpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 263(1)

outbreak of Covid19 and as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India In RE: Cognizance for extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29 of 2022 in miscellaneous application No. 665 of 2021 in suomoto writ petition(C) No. 3 of 2020, in cases where the limitation

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

359/Kol/2022 at its original number and fixed it for hearing in due course by issuing notice to the parties. In terms of the above, miscellaneous application of the assessee is hereby allowed.” 4. Consequently, the appeal was taken up afresh. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been

Gold Coin Apartments Co - Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4645/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Gold Coin Apartments Co-Operative Ito 22(1)(5) Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai Vs. Vakola Pipe Line, Nehru Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 055 Pan/Gir No. Aaaag 1535 H (Assessee) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vidyadhar KhandekarFor Respondent: Ms. Rajni Roy
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

passed the intimation order dated 26.11.2021 and since the Hon'ble Apex Court had extended the limitation period to 90 days, vide Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2022 in MA No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022, the limitation for filing of the appeal was extended upto

Shri Brijesh Sukhdev Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1001/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.197&198/Ahd/2013 (A.Ys.: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Uma Shakti Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Residency Project, Income Tax, A-128, Heritage Bunglows, Central Circle-1(1), Opp. Science City Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380060 [Pan No.Aacfu2135J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. No.196/Ahd/2013 (A.Y.: 2008-09) Vikas R. Patel, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 23, Uma Bungalows, Income Tax, R.C. Technical Road, Central Circle-1(1), B/H. Nirman Tawar, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380061 [Pan No.Accpp4640D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. No.201/Ahd/2013 (A.Y.: 2008-09) Deepak G. Prajapati, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 2, Kunta Park Society, Income Tax, Nava Vadaj, Opp. Ganesh School Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad-380013 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Abcpp4846L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

adjudicating the quantum of income to be subjected to tax on the on-money received by it. The specific finding of the ITAT in Miscellaneous Application is at Para 12 to 14 of the order is reproduced as under: “12. We shall first be dealing with the mistake pointed ... specific findings of the ITAT in M.A. No. 10/Ahd/2022 is at Para 15 to 21 is reproduced as under: “15. Taking up next the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the partners of the firm i.e. Shri Deepak G. Prajapati, Shri Vikash R. Patel and Shri Brijesh Sukhdevbhai Patel

DCIT, Central Cir-2, Madurai vs. J S Nihar Banu, Palakkad

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 445/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate
Section 40A(3)

issues of the order being time barred and non-application of provisions of 40A(3). The assesse recontested the matter by way of an miscellaneous application. The assesse had principally pleaded that the Hon’ble Tribunal had, inter-alia, not considered an order of Hon’ble Madurai Bench

DCIT, Central Cir-2, Madurai vs. J S Nihar Banu, Palakkad

ITA 444/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

issues of the order being time barred and non-application of provisions of 40A(3). The assesse recontested the matter by way of an miscellaneous application. The assesse had principally pleaded that the Hon'ble Tribunal had, inter-alia, not considered an order of Hon'ble Madurai Bench