“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

DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aarey Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Thane

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

ITA 1419/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit Central Circle-2(3) M/S. Aarey Drugs Room No. 803, 8Th Pharmaceuticals Ltd बनाम/ Floor, Prathishtha E-34, Midc Tarapur, Vs. Bhavan (Annexe), M.K. Bhoisar, Road, Churchgate, Thane- 401506 Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca5253A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) None अपीलाथी ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha - Sr. Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 06/07/2023 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha - Sr. AR

Section 250

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

Yamu Industries Ltd vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and cross

ITA 3681/DEL/2000[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 1996-97 Dcit, Central Circle-31, Versus M/S. Yamu Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 5051, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Del/2004 (In Ita No.3681/Del/2000) Assessment Year: 1996-97 M/S. Yamu Industries Ltd., Versus Dcit, Central Circle-31, 5051, Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi. Darya Ganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 254

validly issued, hence, the assessment order cannot be declared as invalid. After the decision of Hon’ble High Court, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application to revive the cross objection. In order dated 25.07.2008, the Tribunal allowed miscellaneous application of the assessee and restored the cross objection to the file

Silkasia, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengluru

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 400/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 2(24)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Date of Hearing – 30/06/2023 Date of Order – 05/07/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present Miscellaneous Application (“M.A.”) has been filed by the Revenue seeking recall of the order dated 25/05/2022, passed under section Silkasia M.A. no.200/Mum./2023 and ITA no.400/Mum ... Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are dismissed. 11. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while the appeal by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/07/2023 B.R. BASKARAN SANDEEP

Miki Industries & Companies P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2418/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Miki Industries & Companies Pvt. Dcit, Central Circle-2(2) Ltd. Mumbai 1St Floor, Haroon House, Vs. 294, Perin Nariman Street, Opp. Rbi Fort, Mumbai -400 001

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair

Section 132Section 144Section 153A

restrict the addition on bogus purchases @ 12.5% as against 15% confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Subsequent to this, the assessee had filed a Miscellaneous Application to recall the said order on the ground that the Tribunal has not decided the issue on the basis that there was no incriminating

M/S. Raj Pipes, Rajnandgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur

ITA 150/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

No.150/RPR/2022 in the case of M/s. Raj Pipes Vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G) dated 05.09.2022. (ii) Subsequently, the assessee filed a miscellaneous Application i.e. MA No.50/RPR/2023, which however was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2023 as withdrawn. (iii) Thereafter, both the assessee and the revenue ... come up with respective miscellaneous applications, i.e. MA No. 43/RPR/2023 dated 02.02.2023 and MA No.51/RPR/2023 dated 09.03.2023. (iv) The miscellaneous application filed by the assessee i.e. MA No.51/RPR/2023 was, thereafter, allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 14.03.2023 and the order passed by the Tribunal disposing off the appeal

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3501/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR

Section 14ASection 251

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

DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3239/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR

Section 14ASection 251

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

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)

The appeal is allowed, with aforesaid consequences, as directed in ground wise findings

ITA 1722/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Mmtc Ltd., Scope Vs. Dcit, Complex, Circle-5(1) Core 1,7, Institutional Area, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80Section 80H

netting of interest income against interest expenditure. The matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. 5. Miscellaneous application No. 276/Del/2007 was filed and the question of interest received on loans and advances to the staff was sought to be revisited in the light

DCIT (TDS) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Punjab National Bank, Mumbai

ITA 2057/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde a/wFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 194Section 201Section 250

listed before us in view of directions of the Hon‟ble Third Member vide aforesaid order. We also find that the assessee filed miscellaneous applications seeking modification of the order dated 18/11/2016 passed by the Hon‟ble Third Member on the basis that the Hon‟ble Third Member ... express any opinion on one of the issues. The said miscellaneous applications were dismissed vide order dated 25/07/2017, by observing as under:- “4. I have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before me. From the order of the Third Member

DCIT(TDS) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Punjab National Bank, Mumbai

ITA 1743/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde a/wFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 194Section 201Section 250

DCIT(TDS) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Punjab National Bank, Mumbai

ITA 1742/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde a/wFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 194Section 201Section 250

Punjab National Bank, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (TDS) 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 1348/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde a/wFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 194Section 201Section 250

DCIT Central Circle-29, Delhi vs. Era Infra Enigneering Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1506/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Central Circle-29, 1107, Indraprakash Building, Delhi. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaace1268K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri T. James Singson, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.1506/Del/2022 For Ay 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-27/10439/2019-20 Dated 25.03.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Central Circle-17, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

present format. However, liberty is given to the IRP to implead himself on behalf of the corporate debtor (assessee herein) by filing a Miscellaneous Application before us, if he so desires, in which event this appeal shall be restored. With these observations, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, Ground no.7 urged by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3545/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleshirish M Dalvi, Dcit Circle 23(3), D Block , 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. Zojwala Complex, Sahajanand Chowk, Kalyan 421 301. Pan Aadpd0358H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil RohraFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule

Tribunal vide its order dated 31.10.2022. Since the Tribunal did not adjudicate Ground no.7 urged by the assessee, he filed a Miscellaneous Application. Accordingly, the above said order was re-called by the Tribunal vide its order dated 28.04.2023 passed in MA No.436/Mum/2022, in order to adjudicate Ground no.7 relating

Krushna Prasad Mohanty, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 146/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.146/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Krushna Prasad Mohanty, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Village : Iswarpur, Po: Balikuda, Dist : Jagatsinghpur Pan No. :Bgtpm 2823 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.03.2023, Passed In Din & Oder No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1050056853(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Ld Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Order Of Ao Without Granting Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Assessee. It Was Also Submitted That The Ld.Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of Delay Of 167 Days In Filing The Appeal. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Was Caused Due To Lockdown During The Period Of Pandemic Covid-19. Accordingly, Ld. Ar Submitted That The 2 Delay May Be Condoned & The Assessee May Be Allowed One More Opportunity To Furnish All The Evidences For Disposal Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

also lockdown during the COVID-19 overcame the time limit to file the appeal in prescribed time limit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 had taken Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants

M/S. Shri Siddeshwar Organic Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove.” 5. In accordance with the above direction the assessee preferred a Miscellaneous application (MA) in MA No. 2/JP/2022. The said MA was disposed with the following observations: “By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking rectification ... hearing. The Registry is directed to fix the case in regular course and notice be sent to both the parties. 2. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is allowed.” 5 M/s Shri Siddeshwar Organic Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 6. Thus, both the parties were issued notices

Nyk Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-18(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7393/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rujesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Delhi dated 01.07.2019. It is pertinent to mention that earlier this appeal was dismissed ex-party by order dated 12.04.2022 and subsequently the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee was allowed in MA No. 153/Del/2022 by order dated 14.10.2022 and appeal was recalled. Now this is being adjudicated in presence

Magnesita Refractories Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is of the Revenue is allowed, whereas the the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () M.A. No. 70/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 186/Mum/2022) Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ito-10(2)(3), M/S Magnesita Refractories Room No. 212, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Room No. 604C, Neelkanth Mumbai-400020. Business Park, Opp. Railway Station, Vidyavihar (West) Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aahcm 1962 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2017-2018 M/S Magnesita Refractories Dcit, Centralized Pvt. Ltd., Processing Centre, Vs. Room No. 604C, Neelkanth Bengaluru-560 500. Business Park, Opp. Railway Station, Vidyavihar (West) Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aahcm 1962 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Neelam Jadhav/Devang Shah Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2023

For Appellant: Neelam Jadhav/Devang ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 254(2)

70/Mum/2023 & ITA No. 186/Mum/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue is , the Revenue is seeking rectification/ tion/recall of the order of the Tribunal dated recall of the order of the Tribunal dated ... received by the Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai Mumbai Mumbai on on on 20.09.2022 20.09.2022 20.09.2022 and and and therefore, therefore, therefore, the the the Miscellaneous Application filed on 20.01.2023 is well within the filed on 20.01.2023 is well within the limitation limitation period for filing the miscellaneous application

Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shreekala Pardeshi, Sr.DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Commissioner)’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. These are recalled matter, vide order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Application (MA) Nos. 9 & 10/Mum/2023 by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai. The assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd ( Formerly Knowna S Mahindra British Telecom Ltd), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2041/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit-2(3) Vs. M/S. Tech Mahindra Ltd. R.No. 555, Aaykar (Formerly Known As Bhavan, Mahindra British Mumbai-400020 Telecome Ltd.) Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacm3484F Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Tech Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Dcit-2(3) (Formerly Known As Mahindra R.No. 555, Aaykar British Telecome Ltd.) Bhavan, Gateway Building, Apollo Mumbai-400020 Bunder Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacm3484F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Jahangir D. Mistri &For Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal

Section 10ASection 92C

appeals were adjudicated by the ITAT vide combined order ITA No. 1035/Mum/2022 and ITA No. 2041/Mum/2010 on 23.03.2022. 2. Thereafter, the assessee company filed miscellaneous application vide MA No. 327/Mum/2022 on the issue of transfer pricing adjustment with respect of charging interest for extended credit period to the associated enterprises ... ITAT vide order MA No. 277/Mum/2022 and 327/Mum/2022 dated 30.04.2023 has recalled the order dated 23.03.2022 to adjudicate the aforesaid issues by allowing the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee. 4. Both the issues are adjudicated as followed. 5. Ground of appeal as per the revenue’s appeal as under