← 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

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/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 53/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

Shriniwas Mishra, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2336/MUM/2021[2018-19`]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleshriniwas Mishra Vs. Dcit, Cpc C/O. Mr. Jp Mishra, Bangalore-560500. 46/12, New A.B Nagar South, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh – 209801 Pan/Gir No. : Agipm2309L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Nitesh Thakkar.Ar Respondent By : Ms. Jayashree Thakur.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(1) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Thakkar.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jayashree Thakur.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(iva)Section 43Section 43B

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/CIT(A) passed U/sec 143(1) and 250 of the Act. 2. The Hon’ble Tribunal in the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue in MA No. 8/Mum/2023 dated 17.03.2023 has recalled the Hon’ble Tribunal order dated 26.05.2022 considering the decision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Taxpayer Unit) - 2, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground number 6 raised by the assessee which is held by the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application order as not decided is now adjudicated and allowed

ITA 136/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Reliance Industries Limited Large Taxpayer Unit, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv 29Th Floor, Center No.1, World Vs. 222, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr5055K Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Reliance Industries Limited Large Taxpayer Unit, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv 29Th Floor, Center No.1, World Vs. 222, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Shri Nimesh Vora & Ms Moksha Mehta, Cas, Ars' Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Damor, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR

learned Assessing Officer respectively were decided on 10th November, 2020. 02. Subsequently, the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 3 January 2022 disposed off Miscellaneous Application no. 113 & 114/Mum/2021 in both the above appeals. 03. MA No. 113/Mum/2021 was filed in ITA No. 136/Mum/2017, wherein it was found that ground ... such gain or loss. 038. In the result, additional ground number 6 raised by the assessee which is held by the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application order as not decided is now adjudicated and allowed. 039. Accordingly, appeal of the learned assessing officer to the extent of ground restored

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai

In the result, additional ground number 6 raised by the assessee which is held by the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application order as not decided is now adjudicated and allowed

ITA 7299/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Reliance Industries Limited Large Taxpayer Unit, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv 29Th Floor, Center No.1, World Vs. 222, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr5055K Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Reliance Industries Limited Large Taxpayer Unit, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv 29Th Floor, Center No.1, World Vs. 222, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Shri Nimesh Vora & Ms Moksha Mehta, Cas, Ars' Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Damor, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, CIT DR

learned Assessing Officer respectively were decided on 10th November, 2020. 02. Subsequently, the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 3 January 2022 disposed off Miscellaneous Application no. 113 & 114/Mum/2021 in both the above appeals. 03. MA No. 113/Mum/2021 was filed in ITA No. 136/Mum/2017, wherein it was found that ground ... such gain or loss. 038. In the result, additional ground number 6 raised by the assessee which is held by the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application order as not decided is now adjudicated and allowed. 039. Accordingly, appeal of the learned assessing officer to the extent of ground restored

Crest Paper Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, additional ground no

ITA 3044/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 3044@Eaqcbz@2016 ¼Fu-Oa- 2010&11½ M/S. Crest Paper Mills Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Tarun Plastic Compound, Morga Village, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 066 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacc4343D Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 8 (1), Aayakar Bhavan ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, Advocate izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri V. S. Mahajan, Sr. AR
Section 41(1)

appeal is in second round before the Tribunal. The appeal was initially decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.12.2018. Thereafter, the assessee filed Miscellaneous Application No. 276/Mum/2019 for recalling the order dated 19.12.2018 as the additional ground raised in the appeal remain to be adjudicated. The Tribunal vide order ... another issue of non-consideration of additional ground preferred by the assessee on 10/10/2018 which is mentioned in para 9 of the Miscellaneous Application, on perusal of the file, we find that assessee had indeed filed additional ground. We find that though the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application had again

M/S. Geekay Securities Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1842/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Geekay Securities Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle-3(1)(1) Services Private Limited 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, G-11, Tulsani Chambers, M.K. Marg, Free Press Journal Marg Mumbai- 400020 Nariman Point, Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccg1282D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram Respondent By : Smt. Anne Varghese Date Of Hearing 17.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Nfac, Delhi Dated 08.09.2021 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In The Circumstances & Facts Of Our Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Dcit, Cpc In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,21,39,702/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Despite The Fact That The Said Amount Of Rs1,21,39,702/- Comprises Of Two Components, An Amount Of Rs.64,43,502/- Which Pertains To Employer'S Contribution To Provident Fund/Lwf & An Amount Of Rs.56,96,200/- Which Pertains To Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund / Lwf & Not Considering The Conclusive Evidence Submitted In Its Written Submission & Supporting Paper Book 2.. In The Circumstances & Facts Of Our Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld Dcit, Cpc In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs. 56,96,200/-

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Smt. Anne Varghese
Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

Hyderabad in the case of Shri Satish K. Sinha Vs. ITO vide ITA No. 293/Hyd/2021 dated 23.08.2021. 2. Subsequently, the revenue vide miscellaneous application no. 406/Mum/2022 has requested for restoration of appeal on the basis of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle)-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4322/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4322/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3317/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-For Respondent: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 153(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 68Section 90

before 31.03.2015 and since the assessment order was passed beyond that date, the assessment is barred by limitation. 5. The ld. AO filed a miscellaneous application before the ld. CIT(A) contending that the decision of the ld. CIT(A) suffers from mistake apparent from record leading to erroneous decision ... assessment in view of Explanation 1(viii) of Section 153 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), however, vide order dated 03.04.2017 dismissed the miscellaneous application of the ld. AO holding that there was no such mistake apparent from record. ACIT vs. Essel Corporate Resources Pvt. Ltd. 6. Aggrieved

DCIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essel Corporate Resources P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3317/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4322/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3317/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-For Respondent: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 153(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 68Section 90

before 31.03.2015 and since the assessment order was passed beyond that date, the assessment is barred by limitation. 5. The ld. AO filed a miscellaneous application before the ld. CIT(A) contending that the decision of the ld. CIT(A) suffers from mistake apparent from record leading to erroneous decision ... assessment in view of Explanation 1(viii) of Section 153 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), however, vide order dated 03.04.2017 dismissed the miscellaneous application of the ld. AO holding that there was no such mistake apparent from record. ACIT vs. Essel Corporate Resources Pvt. Ltd. 6. Aggrieved

Rajeshwara Rao Peri, Vishakhapatnam vs. CIT(A)-TDS(2), Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 185/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Rajeshwera Rao Peri Vs. Cit (Tds)-2, Flat No. 303, Vayuputra Heights New Delhi & Anr, Chandrampalem, Durganagar Madhurawada, Vishakhapatnam- 530041 Pan : Acupp7109B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 192Section 201(1)Section 263Section 89

entries of deduction made by the bank towards TDS of Rs. 11,06,499/- was also reversed. 2.3 Thereafter, the appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application no. 27897/ 2015 in ILPA No. 731/2015 before Hon’ble High Court seeking release of TDS amount Rs. 11,06,499/- upon the foregone

Anand Jhawar, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma, CIT &
Section 12ASection 138Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263

with a delay of 334 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 for the purposes of limitation

Bhagwan Krishan Investment & Trading Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 4345/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2009-10 Bhagwan Krishan Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Investment & Trading Co. New Delhi. (P) Ltd., (Now Pawansut Holding Ltd.), 415, Usha Kiran Azadpur Commercuial Complex, New Delhi, Pin: 1100 33 Pan :Aaccb2095F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

present appeal was earlier dismissed in limine by the Tribunal vide order dated 08.05.2019 on the ground of non-prosecution. However, subsequently, while considering miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, the Tribunal in order dated 23.07.2021 passed in M.A. No. 224/Del/2022 recalled its ex parte order and restored the appeal

Konark Aquatics & Export (P) Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 358/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate assisted by MissFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR assisted by Shri
Section 40

originally been disposed off by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 28.04.2017. The same came to be recalled on a miscellaneous application filed by the revenue in MA No.33/CTK/2017, in respect of the grounds No.5 & 6 of the assessee’s appeal which was been allowed by following ... Though it has been argued by the ld. Sr. DR that at the time of hearing of miscellaneous application, the Bench was convinced that the said amendment was not retrospective and for that purpose only the earlier order of the Tribunal had been recalled. The said argument would not hold

Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-2(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 808/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate; 8sFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, [CIT] - D. R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 154

could not be filed due to Covid Situations and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27th April 2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW (C) No. 3/2020. For the above reasons stated by the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned

Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Gurugram

ITA 477/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Inadvertently, while disposing of the appeal, ground no. 10 raised by the assessee was left out, hence, remained undecided. Therefore, while considering the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee in MA No. 214/Del/2021, the Tribunal vide order dated 29.07.2022 recalled the appellate order for the limited purpose of deciding ground

Dy./Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat vs. M/S. Sumeet Industries Ltd, Surat

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

ITA 201/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 201/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat. 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By 13/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 13/03/2023

Section 154Section 156Section 156ASection 31Section 31(1)Section 5Section 61

dismiss the appeal of the Revenue, as not maintainable in the present format. However a liberty is given to Revenue to file Miscellaneous Application before us, if the Revenue so desires, at later stage, in which event this appeal shall be restored. With these observations, the appeal of the Revenue

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat

ITA 176/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A No. 38/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sumeet Industries Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Surat. Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A No. 46/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: (2012-13) The Dcit, Central Cirlce-2, Vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat. 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A No. 47/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Dcit, Central Cirlce-2, Vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat. 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 120/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Cirlce-2, Vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat. 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B

Section 143(3)Section 156ASection 31Section 31(1)Section 61

However, liberty is given to the IRP or his successor in interest to implead himself on behalf of the assessee company by filing a Miscellaneous Application before us, if he so desires, at later stage, in which event these appeals shall be restored. Likewise, liberty is given to Revenue ... file Miscellaneous Application before us, if the Revenue so desires, at IT(SS)A. 38, 46 to 47/SRT/2021 & ITA .120 & 176/SRT/2021/AYs.2012-13 to 2017-18 M/s. Sumeet Industries Ltd. later stage, in which event these appeals shall be restored. With these observations, the appeal of the Assessee and all appeals

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat

ITA 120/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A No. 38/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sumeet Industries Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Surat. Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A No. 46/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: (2012-13) The Dcit, Central Cirlce-2, Vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat. 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A No. 47/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Dcit, Central Cirlce-2, Vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat. 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 120/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Cirlce-2, Vs. Sumeet Industries Ltd., Surat. 504, Trividh Chambers, Opp. Fire Station, Ring Road, Surat-395002. (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecs2583B

Section 143(3)Section 156ASection 31Section 31(1)Section 61

However, liberty is given to the IRP or his successor in interest to implead himself on behalf of the assessee company by filing a Miscellaneous Application before us, if he so desires, at later stage, in which event these appeals shall be restored. Likewise, liberty is given to Revenue ... file Miscellaneous Application before us, if the Revenue so desires, at IT(SS)A. 38, 46 to 47/SRT/2021 & ITA .120 & 176/SRT/2021/AYs.2012-13 to 2017-18 M/s. Sumeet Industries Ltd. later stage, in which event these appeals shall be restored. With these observations, the appeal of the Assessee and all appeals

Alliance Steel, Kollam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum

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

ITA 194/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri N.S.Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Sri Prasanth V.K, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 263

have been filed on or before 11.07.2020. However, the same has been filed only on 21.10.2021. But, the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(c) No.3/2020 dated 23.09.2021 has excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 for computing the 2 ITA No.194/Coch/2021. Alliance Steel

M/S Ambitious Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Rajkot-Gujarat

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 123/RJT/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Royिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Ambitious Finance & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Investment Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(4), 107, Kapad Market, Para Bazar, Rajkot Rajkot Pan : Aabca 8076 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 234BSection 250

present appeal was initially disposed of by the ITAT vide order dated 12.03.2021, but was subsequently recalled in a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee pointing out the error in the order of the ITAT that it had failed to consider the various arguments made by the assessee ... order passed was without considering all the arguments of the learned AR and, therefore, recalled the appeal for adjudication afresh vide order in Miscellaneous Application No. 07/Rjt/2021 dated 21.09.2022. In consequence to the same, the present appeal came up for hearing before us. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee