“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

Sh. Chandresh Jain Prop. M/S Prabhat Thread (India), Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 699/CHANDI/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 699/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Chandresh Jain, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Prop. M/S Prabhat Thread Ward 2(1), (India), Gali No. 3, Mahavir Ludhiana Colony, G.T. Road, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abdpj7395R अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154

enhanced the disallowance of TDS paid and he had confirmed this addition. Later on, when the mistake was realized, the Assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 13/Chd/2023. After hearing the Counsel of the Assessee and the ld. DR, the Miscellaneous Application was allowed and the Order dated 12.09.2023 was recalled

Naveen Merico Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 424/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Bibekananda Madhu, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filed on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. However, Since the original order has been recalled on the basis of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Department, therefore the appeal is being decided on the basis of record and after hearing the Ld. DR and with

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-12, Pune vs. Raj Surendra Mohan Hajela, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 470/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

appeal filed by the Revenue was earlier partly allowed for statistical purposes by the Tribunal vide order dated 11.07.2023. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide Miscellaneous Application No.237/PUN/2023 order dated 19.01.2024 recalled its earlier order. Hence, this is a recalled matter. 2 3. The Revenue in the instant appeal has challenged

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 642/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234B

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. appeal no. 21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 655 of 2021 appeal no. 21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 655 of 2021 appeal no. 21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jtdy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2471/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234B

Bose Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 435/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 435/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bose Management Services Private Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(1), Limited Vs Kolkata P-82, Dakshini Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Canal South Road Kolkata - 700105 [Pan : Aadcb1495J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/05/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Under These Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Instant Appeal Ex- Parte Qua The Assessee, On The Basis Of Available Records & Hearing The Ld. D/R.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Lumino Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 231 & 365/Kol/2021. Subsequently, the Department had filed a miscellaneous application seeking to recall the order of this Tribunal dt. 20/09/2022, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax - 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Kanaiyalal Sheth, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and Cross

ITA 4122/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Si T A. No. 4122/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2014-15) Acit-5(3)(1), Vs. Bharat Kanaiyalal Sheth 19,B,Manek, Room No.573, 11Ld Rupare Marg, 5Th Flr,Aaykar Bhavan, Napean Sea Road, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaqps2482L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) C.O. No.32/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2014-15) Bharat Kanaiyalal Sheth Vs. Acit-5(3)(1), 19,B,Manek, Room No.573, 11Ld Rupare Marg, 5Th Flr,Aaykar Bhavan, Napean Sea Road, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaqps2482L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant/Respondent Shri.Laxmi Kant.Sr.Dr Respondent/Appellant Shri.M.M.Golvala.Ar

Section 143(3)

provide evidence that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided in the circular issued by the CBDT. The revenue may prefer miscellaneous application for recalling of this order, if they so desire, in which circumstances, this order shall be recalled by the Hon’ble Tribunal. 4. Since

DCIT Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO in ITA number

ITA 3573/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Idbi Bank Ltd. Dcit Circle 3(4) 7Th Floor, R.No. 559, 5Th Floor, Idbi Tower Wtc Complex Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 020 Mm 400005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci8842G

For Appellant: Shri C Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Ms Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT

Section 143Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 254

facts of the case shows that the assessee is a bank, tribunal order in ITA number 3908/M/2009 and 3760/M/2009 dated 2 January 2020 and miscellaneous Application order in ITA number 180/M/2020 dated September 25, 2020 was passed and consequent to that an order giving effect was passed by the learned

M/S. Shreyans Credit & Capital P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cemtral Circle7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1644/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

holding the same as non- genuine one. 2. This appeal was originally disposed of by the Tribunal on 31.03.2023. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application subsequently seeking recall of the order and the same was numbered as M.A. No. 644/Mum/2023. The Tribunal recalled its order dated 31.03.2023 allowing the Miscellaneous

Shri Praveen Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Meerut

ITA 2943/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Praveen Gupta, Vs Acit, Flat No. D-101, 1St Floor, Circle-2, Tower No. D, Caitriona Residential Meerut. Apartment Complex, Ambience Island, Nh-8, Gurgaon 122001 Pan: Acjpg4777H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

bench had fixed the appeal for hearing on 19.04.2023 which was announced in the court on the conclusion of the hearing. The order in miscellaneous application mentions no notice will be given in this regard. The record shows thereafter on 19.04.2023, none appeared for the assessee, subsequently notices have been

Rohini Gaurishankar Kalyani, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 319/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

r.w.s. 144B of the Act. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation with Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, order dated 10.01.2022 has issued

JCIT (It) (OSD)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Rangachari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 2393/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 254(2)Section 9(1)(i)

reversed by the Tribunal in ITA No.2393/Mum/2019. 3. Against the said ex-parte order, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application on 09.06.2023, being MA No: 427/Mum/2023, wherein the assessee pleaded to recall and cancel the original order dated 22.04.2022 as the respondent assessee did not receive any of the notice

M/S.Prism Share Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6466/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 68

bench on 12.08.2022. Subsequently, the above said order was recalled in pursuance 2 Assessment Year 2014-15 of order dated 16.08.2023 passed against the Miscellaneous application no,228/Mum/2023 filed by the assessee. 2. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is engaged in the business

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1055/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Revenue were heard and adjudicated earlier by the Tribunal on 31.05.2023, however, same have been recalled by the Tribunal vide order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 620 & 621/M/2023 for assessment year 2010-11 on 16.01.2024 thus before us for adjudication. These appeals are arising from the order

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited and Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1235/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Concentrix Services India बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd Room No. 209, Aayakar Vs. (Formerly Known As Minacs Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pvt. Ltd, Minacs Limited Churchgate, Mumbai- & Aditya Birla Minacs 400020. Worldwide Limited) 9Th Floor, Symphony It Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1567A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken Shah Revenue By: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 30.01.2015 Passed By The Dcit- 10(2)(2), Mumbai For Ay. 2010-11, Pursuant To Direction Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (Hereinafter “The Ld. Drp”) Dated 27.10.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Brought To Our Notice That This Appeal Of The Assessee Company For The Relevant Year I.E. Ay. 2010-11 Was Partly Allowed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.06.2023. & Thereafter, The Assessee Preferred A Miscellaneous Application (Ma)

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37

relevant year i.e. AY. 2010-11 was partly allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.06.2023. And thereafter, the assessee preferred a Miscellaneous Application (MA) 2 A.Y. 2010-11 M/s. Concentrix Services India Pvt. Ltd. before this Tribunal pointing out that an additional ground of appeal relating to disallowance

Income Tax Officer, Bkc Bandra vs. Vijaylakshmi, Sakinaka Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3306/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Bkc Vijaylakshmi, Sakinaka Bandra, 36, Gr Floor, Sagar Pallozio Vs. 315 Kautilya Bhavan, Income Andheri Kurla Road Opp. Tax Office Bkc Bandra East- Sudharshan Hotel, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aaipu 8085 F Appellant Respondent : None Assessee By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr Revenue By : 18/04/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 41(1)

applicable on the other reason the tax effect circular is not applicable on the assessee, the revenue he revenue is at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order of the Tribunal for recalling the order of the Tribunal, if so advised

ITO (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Raj Vasant Jadhav, Mumbai

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

ITA 2039/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale: A.Y :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sant-Addl.CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Jayant Bhatt&

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

ground that tax effect involved in this appeal is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT in its Circular. Subsequently, the revenue filed a miscellaneous application submitting that the issues contested in this appeal are covered by the exceptions given by CBDT in the Circular. Accordingly, the Tribunal, vide

Shabina Ibrahim Pinto, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3, Udupi

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

ITA 381/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for department

Section 144

need not be explained by the assessee as this delay of Covid period was already condoned by the 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 dated

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 717/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153A

717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 delay is due to pandemic period of Covid 19 and subsequent events and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period ... they have condoned the delay up to 28.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay during the said period, respectfully following the same we condone the delay in filing of appeals both by the assessee

ACIT, Circle - 1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 716/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153A