← 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

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

dismissed by the Tribunal vide order in MA No. 103/M/2022 dated 21.07.2022. 103/M/2022 dated 21.07.2022. Thereafter, the Tribunal , the Tribunal, on a further miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue, recalled the further miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue further miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue order of the Tribunal ibunal ... consideration of detailed submissions made by the Ld. careful consideration of detailed submissions made by the Ld. AR objecting t AR objecting to the Miscellaneous Application filed by the o the Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue and we observe that in the normal circumstances revenue and we observe that

Raghu Rama Renewable Energy Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 444/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 444/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Raghu Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer Renewable Energy Ltd, Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccr0908F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raj Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.7.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Not Condoning The Delay Of 549 Days In Filing Of The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,54,32,624/-

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri N. Raj Kumar, DR
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

delay of 549 days as against the due date of 7.5.2021. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 he submitted that the delay till ... assessee that the delay up to 28.02.2022 has to be condoned in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020. So far as the balance delay of 252 days

Arvinder Paul Jit Singh Gill, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Nalin Nohria & Shri B.K.Nohria,CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Year 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2. The captioned appeals were earlier decided by this Bench vide order dated 28.06.2022. Subsequently, the Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application in both the appeals ITA 324&325/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 2 (M.A.No. 4 & 5/CHD/2023) for recall of the order of the Bench ... Both the Miscellaneous Applications of the Revenue were allowed vide order dated 11.12.2023 and the order of the Tribunal was recalled. Both the appeals were fixed for hearing on 20.02.2024. 3. As the facts, issues and circumstances in both the appeals are identical, therefore, both appeals were heard together

Praayas Welfare Society, Bankura vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 28 & 29/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Praayas Welfare Society,..........................Appellant Kayasthapara Maliara, Bajora Bankura-722142, West Bengal [Pan: Aakap3127G] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption),.Respondent Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Anketa Lohia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2024

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Praayas Welfare Society under sections 12AA and 80G(5) have been denied to the assessee. 2. The assessee has filed two Miscellaneous Applications for grant of out of turn hearing. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through both the applications. A perusal of the record would suggest

Praayas Welfare Society, Bankura vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 28/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 28 & 29/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Praayas Welfare Society,..........................Appellant Kayasthapara Maliara, Bajora Bankura-722142, West Bengal [Pan: Aakap3127G] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption),.Respondent Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Anketa Lohia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2024

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Praayas Welfare Society under sections 12AA and 80G(5) have been denied to the assessee. 2. The assessee has filed two Miscellaneous Applications for grant of out of turn hearing. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through both the applications. A perusal of the record would suggest

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because ... revenue's plea was that the violation of principles of natural justice was not fatal so as to jeopardize the entire proceedings. The said miscellaneous application was also rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 28-11-2008. 7. In view of the foregoing circumstances, we feel that

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because ... revenue's plea was that the violation of principles of natural justice was not fatal so as to jeopardize the entire proceedings. The said miscellaneous application was also rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 28-11-2008. 7. In view of the foregoing circumstances, we feel that

Smiths Medical India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Central Processsin Centre, Bangalore, Judicial Assessing Officer: WD 21(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh,DR
Section 143(1)

case of Checkmate Service Services Pvt. Ltd. in Civil appeal No. appeal No.2833 of 2016 passed on 12.10.2022 passed on 12.10.2022, on being a miscellaneous application , on being a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal recalled its decision dated filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal recalled its decision ... dated filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal recalled its decision dated 27.07.2022 in order passed in miscellaneous application 27.07.2022 in order passed in miscellaneous application 27.07.2022 in order passed in miscellaneous application No.230/M/2023 No.230/M/2023 dated dated 05.01.2024, 05.01.2024 for for deciding deciding afresh. afresh. Accordingly, this appeal has been heard

DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wanbury Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3626/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Wanbury Limited, B Wing, 10Th Floor, Income Tax, Circle – 15(3)(1), Bsel Tech Park, Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Vs. Sector 30, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp Vashi Railway Station, M.K. Road, Vashi, Mumbai - 400020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aabcp5939P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2024 Order Per : Om Prakash Kant, Am This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 07.02.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short The Ld. Cit(A)] For Assessment Year 2015-16, Raising Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,29,63,154/-, Without Considering The Circular No. 22/2015 Dated 17.12.2015 Of The Board Regarding Employer'S Contribution To Funds For The Welfare Of Employees In Terms Of Section 43B (B)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

holding that the assessee applied for settlement of tax dispute under the ‘Vivad Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme’ (VSVS), 2020. However, (VSVS), 2020. However, on miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue that the on miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue that the on miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue that ... consideration and therefore in view of apparent mistake , in view of apparent mistake , the the Tribunal Tribunal vide vide order order in in miscellaneous miscellaneous application application No.214/Mum/2022 dated 05.01.2024 ,recalled the order dated No.214/Mum/2022 dated 05.01.2024 , recalled the order dated 22.09.2021 for deciding afresh for deciding afresh and hence

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 381/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Bench. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous M.A. No.56/KOL/2019 Application bearing pointing out apparent errors in the aforesaid order passed on 06.11.2019 and the said Miscellaneous Application was recalling earlier order of the ITAT dated 19.09.2018 to extend the prudent of the following issues referring paragraph no. 3 thereof ... assessee was in appeal before us only for the two issues, which were directed by the Hon’ble ITAT in the order of Miscellaneous Application. 5. The ld. A.R. vehemently argued at the time of hearing before us and filed written submissions, which are kept in the record

Eximcorp India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-5(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2582/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

vide its order dated 30.03.2022 it was dismissed. The assessee has filed I.T.A. No.: 2582/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Eximcorp India Private Limited. a Miscellaneous Application for recall of the ex-parte order and deciding it again after hearing the assessee. But this Miscellaneous Application was also rejected

M/S Fashion Palace, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, WD-27(3), Haldia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 195/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 28Section 44A

contemplated in the procedure. But the appeal was dismissed in limine. Therefore, when it came to the notice of the assessee, he filed a Miscellaneous Application I.T.A. No.: 195/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Fashion Palace. bearing No. 28/KOL/2023. This application has been allowed by the Tribunal vide its order

M/S. Materials Chemicals and Performance Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly, Mcc Pta India Corp. Private Ltd.), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 11, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 388/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80H

Miscellaneous Applicationfollowed by the order of ITAT, SMC Bench bearing M.A No. 35/Kol/2021 date of order 27.05.2022. As per the order of the miscellaneous application of the assessee the main application of appealwas recalled and fixed for the hearing before the Bench. By perusing the order, we observed that ... file of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee filed a miscellaneous application for considering the additional ground which was escaped the attention of the Bench. The additional groundS of the assesseeare duly claimed deduction u/s 80HHC

Chaudhry Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CPC Bangalore DCIT - 20(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 217/MUM/2022[2018-19`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C.V. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Date of Order – 06/02/2024 Chaudhry Industries M.A. no.14/Mum./2024 ITA no.217/Mum./2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present Miscellaneous Application (“M.A”) has been filed by the assessee seeking recall of the ex–parte order dated 24/07/2023, passed under section 254(1) of the Income

Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

limit specified by CBDT vide its circular dated 08- 08-19 for withdrawing appeals filed to the ITAT. That subsequently in pursuance to miscellaneous application filed by the Department the appeal for A.Y 1996-97 was revived vide order in MA. No.48/Ahd/2020 dated 05/10/2020, while the Miscellaneous application seeking revival

The ITO, Ward-13(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Shivajirao R.Chavan, Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 332/AHD/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

limit specified by CBDT vide its circular dated 08- 08-19 for withdrawing appeals filed to the ITAT. That subsequently in pursuance to miscellaneous application filed by the Department the appeal for A.Y 1996-97 was revived vide order in MA. No.48/Ahd/2020 dated 05/10/2020, while the Miscellaneous application seeking revival

Demi Realtors, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

ITAT, Hyderabad 'A' Bench, vide order in M.A. No. 12571- 1yd/2014 [arising out of ITA No. 649/Hyd/2013) held that "After going through the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, we find that there appears certain mistakes apparent on record. We find it necessary to recall the order of the ITAT

ACIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Acit-2(2)(2), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Yes Bank Ltd., 15Th Floor, Yes Bank Tower, Ifc 2, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBΑΙ BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14A

kindly refer to para 34). Ld. DRP's order in present case is dated 03.7.2017. Kind reference is invited to order passed in Miscellaneous Application relating to AY 10-11 (page 1450 of paperbook @ para 2 on page 1451). Hon'ble Tribunal decided the issue conclusively after taking into account

Jt Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ) Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. Mcleod Co. Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 513/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

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 revenue