← 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

Mr. Narayana Nippanin Rao, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1923/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalenarayana Nippanirao, Vs. Dcit, Cpc 22 Revati Nofra, Near Rc Bangalore Church, Colaba, Karnataka - 560500 Mumbai – 400005. Pan/Gir No. : Aadpr8507L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Narayana Rao.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K. Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Narayana Rao.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Naina K. Kumar.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filed the appeal against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A) passed U/sec 250 of the Act. The Hon’ble Tribunal in the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue in MA No.368 /Mum/2022 dated 31.03.2023 has recalled the Hon’ble Tribunal order dated 13.05.2022 considering the decision

Umberto Ceramics Int P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1661/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’]. The appeals were disposed off vide order, dated 29/03/2022. However, on a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue (MA No. 440/Mum/2022), the order was recalled vide ITA No.1662//Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) order, dated 03.03.2023, and therefore

Nitin A. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 665/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Nitin A. Shah Ito-19(2)(4) 31/32, 8Th Floor, Giriraj Apartment, 217, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Vs. Grant Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006

For Appellant: Ms. Suchek Anchaliya/For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153C

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation (in 2 Nitin A. Shah vs. ITO Miscellaneous Application No. 21 0f 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022), where

Dinesh Kumar, Palwal vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 1910/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 69A

been filed only on 27.11.2020 by the delay of 237 days therefore in view of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2021 bearing miscellaneous application no. 665/2021 in suo moto Writ Petition, SMW(C) No. 3/2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has again restore the order dated

Ram Kishan, Palwal vs. ITO Ward - 2(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 1909/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 69A

been filed only on 27.11.2020 by the delay of 237 days therefore in view of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2021 bearing miscellaneous application no. 665/2021 in suo moto Writ Petition, SMW(C) No. 3/2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has again restore the order dated

Sh. Padam Singhee, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5462/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

that the appeal was earlier disposed of by order dated 03.10.2017 for non-appearance of the assessee/ appellant thereafter on filing in the miscellaneous application the order was recalled. The Miscellaneous application filed for the assessee mentioned the fact that the company was ordered to be wound

Pmp Auto Components P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 587/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 92B(1)

Auto Components P. Ltd.) disposed of by the Tribunal, vide its common order dated 24-05-2019. Subsequently, the assessee moved two miscellaneous applications in respect of above said appeals. The miscellaneous application no.453/Mum/2019 was related to the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.209/Mum/2016. The miscellaneous ... No.209/Mum/2016. As noticed earlier, this appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal, vide its common order dated 24.05.2019. Against the miscellaneous application filed for AY 2011-12 (MA No.453/Mum/2019), the Tribunal has corrected certain mistakes, vide its order dated 09-01-2020, which was again corrected by a Corrigendum dated

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1402/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Chalet Hotels Limited, Dy. Commissioner Of Raheja Tower, Plot No. C-30, Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs. Opp. Sidbi, 4(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Room No. 1918, Air India Bandra (East), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaack 0411 E Appellant Respondent : Mr. Madhur Agrawal & Assessee By Mr. Manan Mathuria Ar : Mr. Chetan Kacha, Cit-Dr Revenue By : 17/02/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 11/05/2023

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, &
Section 139(1)Section 153A

This appeal by the assessee was adjudicated by the Tribunal on 14.06.2022, however same has been recalled by way of the order in Miscellaneous Application No. 358/Mum/2022, and therefore, both the parties were again Chalet Hotels Ltd. heard on the ground raised in the appeal. The relevant heard

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Suparna Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on ground No

ITA 7914/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Cit-3(3)(2), M/S Suparna Chemicals Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 54F, Mittal Tower, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcs 4578 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR
Section 148Section 35ASection 37(1)

Date of pronouncement 11/05/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has arisen on account of order of the Tribunal dated 09.02.2023 in Miscellaneous Application No. 133/Mum/2020 wherein order passed by the Tribunal dated 19.08.2019 has been recalled. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in order dated ... Revenue. Against said order, the Revenue had preferred the Revenue. Against said order, the Revenue ha the Revenue. Against said order, the Revenue ha Miscellaneous Application in respect of Ground No. 1 decided by the Miscellaneous Application in respect of Ground No. 1 decided by the Miscellaneous Application in respect

Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1113/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmahcl Comnet Limited Vs. Dcit, 806, Sidharth, Circle-11(1), 96, Nehru Place, Room No. 416, New Delhi C.R.Building, Pan : Aach9667H New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 254(2)

Connect Ltd. 2 3. Earlier, a co-ordinate bench by order dated 04.09.2020 had allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereafter, assessee filed a miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of the Act submitting that the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee with regard to addition ... alone, which was relief in alternative and did not take into consideration the controversy in ground no. 2, which was reopened while allowing Miscellaneous Application. Appellant’s plea in ground 2, is qua additions made by Ld. AO on account of credit of tax deducted at source on deferred revenue

Kiran Pabuwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/JPR/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 23Section 234ASection 57Section 69

with a delay of 122 days. 2. Further, it is submitted that as per the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 vide order dated 10-01-2022 directed that ‘’the period from 15-03-2020 till 28-02-2022 shall stand excluded

M/S. Centrum Microcredit Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT Centralized Processsing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1602/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Centrum Microcredit Ltd., Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 801, Centrum House, Cpc, Bengaluru-560500. Vs. Vidyanangari, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. Pan No. Aafcn 3506 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ravikant S. Pathak Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee was adjudicated on 06.04.2022 however same has been recalled by way of the order dated 28.04.2023 in Miscellaneous Application No. 59/Mum/2023 and therefore, both the parties were again heard on the ground raised in the appeal. The relevant grounds of appeal are reproduced

Achanta Ramu, Siddhantam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

ITA 336/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.336/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Achanta Ramu Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.8-176, Near Panchayat Income Tax Siddhantam, Penugonda Mandal Rajahmundry West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Arjpa9207F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28 .04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Rajahmundry Vide F.No.15/263/Pr/Cit, Rjy/2018-19 Dated 31.03.2019 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte, Vide It’S Order No.I.T.A.336/Viz/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)

order No.I.T.A.336/Viz/2019 2 I.T.A. No.336/Viz/2019, A.Y.2014-15 Achanta ERamu, West Godavari dated 23.08.2022, since there was no representation from assessee’s side. The assessee filed miscellaneous application, prayed for recalling the order and post the case for hearing by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Keeping in view

ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Fusion Jewellery Manufacturing Company P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as ‘withdrawn/not pressed’

ITA 5084/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)

therefore, the present appeal is dismissed as ‘withdrawn/not pressed’ in terms of the abovesaid circular with the liberty to the Revenue to file Miscellaneous Application seeking recall the present order within time limit prescribed in the Act in case on re-verification the Revenue comes to a conclusion that

S.J.Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. Jao WD 21(3) (2), CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2013/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhs.J.Metal Industries Vs. Central Processing Centre, Ground Floor, Jain Estate Bangalore, Jakaria Road, Judicial Assessing Officer: Malad (W) Ward 21(3)(2) Mumbai – 400 064 1St Floor, Prestige Apha No. 48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Rd, Uttaranhalli Hobli Bengaluru Karnataka – 560100 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aatfs6124J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bhupendra Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

employee’s contribution of provident fund before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, vide miscellaneous application no. 333/Mum/2022 the revenue seek to recall the order of the ITAT vide ITA No. 2013/Mum/2021 dated 13.05.2022 for assessment year

Andhra Pradesh State Certification Authority(Formerly Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency), Guntur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

assessee, the Tribunal passed ex-parte order vide its order in ITA No. 215/Viz/2020 (AY 2016-17), dated 19/04/2022. However, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application stating the reasons prevented the assessee for non-appearance on the date of hearing before the Tribunal. Considering the submissions of the assessee

Airlink Communication Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS-1), Surat

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.53 To 57/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Airlink Communication Pvt. Ltd. Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Tds, Aaykar Bhavan, 1-2, Annapurna Shopping Centre, Vs. Surat-395001 1St Floor Aadajan Patia, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaufr 6898 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 200A

applicable legal position. We note that in India, Covid-19 period started from 15.03.2020 (vide suo motu Writ Petition of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022). It is clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded in computing limitation ... period for instituting appeals. The findings of Hon'ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 dated 10.01.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: “III In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining

Airlink Communication Private Limited, Surat vs. Asst./ Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle TDS, Surat

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 57/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.53 To 57/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Airlink Communication Pvt. Ltd. Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Tds, Aaykar Bhavan, 1-2, Annapurna Shopping Centre, Vs. Surat-395001 1St Floor Aadajan Patia, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaufr 6898 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 200A

applicable legal position. We note that in India, Covid-19 period started from 15.03.2020 (vide suo motu Writ Petition of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022). It is clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded in computing limitation ... period for instituting appeals. The findings of Hon'ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 dated 10.01.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: “III In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining

Airlink Communication Private Limited, Surat vs. Asst./ Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle TDS, Surat

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.53 To 57/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Airlink Communication Pvt. Ltd. Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Tds, Aaykar Bhavan, 1-2, Annapurna Shopping Centre, Vs. Surat-395001 1St Floor Aadajan Patia, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaufr 6898 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 200A

applicable legal position. We note that in India, Covid-19 period started from 15.03.2020 (vide suo motu Writ Petition of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022). It is clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded in computing limitation ... period for instituting appeals. The findings of Hon'ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 dated 10.01.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: “III In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining

Airlink Communication Private Limited, Surat vs. Asst./ Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle TDS, Surat

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.53 To 57/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Airlink Communication Pvt. Ltd. Asst./Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Tds, Aaykar Bhavan, 1-2, Annapurna Shopping Centre, Vs. Surat-395001 1St Floor Aadajan Patia, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaufr 6898 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 200A

applicable legal position. We note that in India, Covid-19 period started from 15.03.2020 (vide suo motu Writ Petition of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022). It is clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded in computing limitation ... period for instituting appeals. The findings of Hon'ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 dated 10.01.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: “III In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining