← 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

M/S.Koninklijke Philips N.V, Kolkata vs. ACIT(I), Cir-1(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1264/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

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 Hence, we are dismissing the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty to the assessee to get the appeal revived by filing necessary miscellaneous application if the assessee is not successful in the VSVS-24, for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 assessee

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It) - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3235/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. All these four appeals have been recalled by the order of the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application number 220 – 223/M/2022 for assessment year 2006 – 07 to assessment year 2009 – 10 as per order dated 20/9/2023 wherein the additional ground raised by the assessee in the original

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3234/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. All these four appeals have been recalled by the order of the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application number 220 – 223/M/2022 for assessment year 2006 – 07 to assessment year 2009 – 10 as per order dated 20/9/2023 wherein the additional ground raised by the assessee in the original

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3233/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. All these four appeals have been recalled by the order of the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application number 220 – 223/M/2022 for assessment year 2006 – 07 to assessment year 2009 – 10 as per order dated 20/9/2023 wherein the additional ground raised by the assessee in the original

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3232/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. All these four appeals have been recalled by the order of the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application number 220 – 223/M/2022 for assessment year 2006 – 07 to assessment year 2009 – 10 as per order dated 20/9/2023 wherein the additional ground raised by the assessee in the original

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

final decision rendered by the Tribunal is extracted below by culling out relevant observations from the main order and the order passed in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee:- From Main Order:- “15.1 The Ld CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision rendered by Special

Concerto Software and Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1854/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Concerto Software & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 15(1)(2), Unit No. 311/312 313, Building 2, Sector Room No. 483, 4Th Floor, 1, Millenium Business Park, Mahape, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai-400 710. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcc 4006 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dyaneshwar Patil (Employee on behalf of company)For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

This appeal has been taken up for adjudication in compliance to the order of the ITAT (in short the ‘Tribunal’) dated 15.12.2023 in Miscellaneous Application No. 363/Mum/2023, wherein the Tribunal has recalled its earlier order dated 10.08.2022 and appeal was restored to its original number. The original appeal was filed

The Jt. CIT, (OSD), Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue , so far as Ground no

ITA 523/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Jt.Cit (Osd) Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4(1)(1) V. 25, 4Th Floor Ahmedabad Shukan Mall Nr.Rajasthan Hospital Shahibaug, Ahmedabad-380054 Gujarat Pan: Aaics 9312 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ramit Kocharthis Appeal Filed By Revenue Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 22/01/2019 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of Sub-Section (6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13(Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/168/15-16), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld. Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated Jt.Cit(Osd) V. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Ay 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate and Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 40A(3)

here that this appeal filed by Revenue was adjudicated by ITAT , Ahmedabad Bench “B”, Ahmedabad vide appellate order dated 08/02/2023. The Department thereafter filed Miscellaneous Application dated 11/07/2023 which was listed as MA No. 60/Ahd/2023, in which Department has averred that Ground No.4 raised by Revenue in its appeal ... rectify the aforesaid mistake apparent from Record. The Jt.CIT(OSD) v. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 3 Tribunal vide its order in Miscellaneous Application dated 02/08/2023 listed as MA No.60/Ahd/2023 for AY 2012-13 (arising out of ITA No.523/Ahd/2019 for AY 2012-13) held that there

Parameswaran Bashkar, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Parameswaran Bashkar, The Income Tax Officer, House Number 784, Voc Layout, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vgp Layout, Uthandi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 119. [Pan: Adapb-4101-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ,-थ* की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4(6)Section 4(7)Section 54F

merit and disposed of the appeal in favour of the assessee vide order dated 27-06-2022. 9. Thereafter, the Department filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 112/Chny/2022 before the Tribunal for rectification of certain mistakes which were apparent in the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal. The Department submitted that ... DTVSV Act, 2020 in Form No. 3 on 21-04-2021. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 04th November, 2022 dismissed the Miscellaneous Application of the Department on the submission of the assessee that he has settled the disputed demand under that VSVS, 2020. 10. Thereafter, the assessee filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7.1.1, Bengaluru vs. Visskan Aviation Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal preferred by revenue is dismissed

ITA 728/BANG/2023[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Visskan Aviation The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 104, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Kirloskar Colony, Circle – 7(1)(1), Mahalakshmipuram, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 086. Pan: Aaccv2564M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT DR
Section 143(1)

appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The grievance ventilated in these appeals is regarding the dismissal of the I.T.A. No. 141/2016 and Miscellaneous application(s) as well as analogous appeals filed before the Delhi High Court only on the ground of Page 3 inordinate delay

Dudhsagar Research and Development Association. (O/O. Dudhsagar Dairy), Mehsana vs. The ACIT(Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to this additional ground of appeal

ITA 1147/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)

assessee’s facts, the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed Miscellaneous Application, in which the assessee had submitted that the assessee had raised an additional ground of appeal that in case it is held that

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Winstar E-Com Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5315/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 68

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

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Winstar E-Com Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5314/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 68

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

America Express Services India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3525/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

paper book/ compendium submitted during the hearing. We request that this decision needs to be read with order of Hon 'ble Tribunal in miscellaneous application and order in recalled matter placed at pages 7 to 13 of the said caselaw folder. Relevant facts are noted by Hon'ble Tribunal ... paper book. For completion it may be noted that although at para 10 on page 5, Tribunal noted incorrectly about goodwill, by order in Miscellaneous application at page 9 of the said compendium, the conclusion has been withdrawn and vide order dated 29th October 2014 Hon'ble Tribunal decided

M/S. American Express Services India Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3447/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

paper book/ compendium submitted during the hearing. We request that this decision needs to be read with order of Hon 'ble Tribunal in miscellaneous application and order in recalled matter placed at pages 7 to 13 of the said caselaw folder. Relevant facts are noted by Hon'ble Tribunal ... paper book. For completion it may be noted that although at para 10 on page 5, Tribunal noted incorrectly about goodwill, by order in Miscellaneous application at page 9 of the said compendium, the conclusion has been withdrawn and vide order dated 29th October 2014 Hon'ble Tribunal decided

M/S. S.K.Ventures, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 2173/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Baburao Karpe, Sr. A.R
Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

condoned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to Covid-19 pandemic vide order dated January 2 M/s. S.K. Ventures 10, 2022 passed in miscellaneous application No.21 of 2022, 665 of 2021 & Suo Motu Writ Peeition (C) No.3 of 2020. 2. We are inclined to agree with the contentions raised

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

ITA 1168/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 35Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `F', NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ingersoll Rand Climate Solutions P. Ltd( Trane India P.Ltd), Mumbai

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

ITA 1796/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit-10(1)(1), Vs. M/S. Ingersoll Rand Room No. 209, Climate Solutions Pvt Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.(Trane India India M.K.Road, Pvt Ltd),Unit No.31, Mumbai -400020. 3Rd Floor, 2Nd Level, Kalpatru Square, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai.-400059. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct9322M Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 153/Mum/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/S. Ingersoll Rand Vs. Dcit-10(1)(1), Climate Solutions Pvt Room No. 209, Ltd.(Trane India India Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt Ltd),Unit No.31, M.K.Road, 3Rd Floor, 2Nd Level, Mumbai -400020. Kalpatru Square, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai.-400059. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct9322M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Ninad Patade.ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai. Sr.DR

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 ITA No. 1796/Mum/2016&CO.No.153/Mum/2016 M/s. Ingersoll Rand Climate Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. which circumstances

Ashok Minda, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi

ITA 1512/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2018-19
Section 108Section 132Section 69BSection 69C

2 PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: ORDER ITA No.1512/Del/2020 and 1061/Del/2021 are two cross appeals by the assessee and the

+DCIT CC- 7(2), Mumbai vs. Sahebrao Deshmukh Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed, while Ground No

ITA 2478/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

present appeal was disposed off vide order dated 27/02/2022 on account of low tax effect. However, subsequently, vide order dated 10/11/2023, passed in Miscellaneous Application preferred by the Revenue [MA No. 174/Mum/2023] the aforesaid order, dated 27/02/2022, was recalled in view of the fact that the reassessment proceedings