← 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

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3083/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

other hand, the Ld. CIT (DR) filed a written submission, which is reproduced as under: “1. PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS 1.1 The present Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee have been allowed on the limited ground that the Tribunal's order dated 23/08/2021 did not address the specific issue regarding "defective notice

Ncr Global Solutions Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1885/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

failed to adjudicate the primary issue regarding the existence of PE of the assessee through its non-exclusive dealer CIPL. Thus, while considering the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee, the Tribunal, vide order dated 11th July, 2024, recalled the appeal order for the limited purpose of adjudicating the issue

Forum Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 483/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Forum Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, C-134, Defence Colony, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 024. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf8920D Assessee By : Ms Vanshika Mehta, Advocate & Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms Vanshika Mehta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 254(2)

escaped adjudicating upon the aforesaid additional ground that was raised by the assessee company. Aggrieved by the decision of the assessee company filed 2 Miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of Act seeking rectification of mistake and thus by order dated 09.05.2025, a coordinate Bench restored the appeal of the assessee ... hearing on 11.06.2025. Since, both the parties are informed in the open court, no fresh notice would follow. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed". 4. Now what comes up is that, the impugned Assessment order for AY 2014-2015 was passed

Psa Nitrogen Limited Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT Appeals, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as defective

ITA 5959/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5959/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 बनाम M/S Psa Nitrogen Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Tax E-438, Gk 2, New Delhi. Vs. (Appeals), Room No.317-A & 317-B, Drum Shaped Building, I.P. Estate, Pan No.Aaacp0953G New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271B

running format. Thus, since assessee has not coming forward to remove the defects. The appeal is dismissed with liberty to the assessee to file miscellaneous application for revival of appeal once the defects pointed out by the registry is complied with. 4. In the result, appeal of the Assessee

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

relevant to mention here that this appeal was dismissed vide order dated 02.07.2024 by the co-ordinate bench. Later, the assessee filed Miscellaneous Application No. 280/Del/2024, which was allowed and this appeal was recalled vide order dated 30.01.2025 as under: - “8. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 759/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

that the calculation of disproportionate asset had been done on the basis of pattern mandated by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.6215/2020 and the entire break up is reproduced at page nos.8 to 10 of the order as under: ITA Nos.338, 339, 758 & 759/Ahd/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

settled by the decision of the apex court in the case of Abhishar Buildwell and U. K. Paints and the revenue's Miscellaneous application was disposed off by observing as under 1.1.i. Against the judgment dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell ... settled by the decision of the apex court in the case of Abhishar Buildwell and U. K. Paints and the revenue's Miscellaneous application was disposed off by observing as under 1.1.i. Against the judgment dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell

M/S. Bekaert Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Initially this appeal was heard on 09.12.2021 and was disposed off vide order on 13.12.2021. Thereafter, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application and the appeal has been recalled vide M.A.No.202/PUN/2022 order 19.10.2023 for the limited purpose of examining the consideration paid for use of the IT Infrastructure facility under ... India-Belgium Treaty and thereby affirmed the addition made by the AO/DRP. 25. I find the assessee preferred a Miscellaneous Application submitting that there was an inadvertent error which had crept into Page 4 4 ITA No.1003/PUN/2017 M/s. Bekaert Industries Private Limited the order of the Tribunal by relying upon

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

above submissions advanced on behalf of the Assessee. We find that vide Order, dated 30/09/2024, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application (Diary No.35868 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.153 of 2021) in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (earlier known ... same is restored on the file of this court for the purpose of the considering the same on the aforesaid issue only. 7. The miscellaneous application is consequently allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” (Emphasis Supplied) 4.9. On the perusal of above order, it becomes clear that both

Vodafone Digilink Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

above submissions advanced on behalf of the Assessee. We find that vide Order, dated 30/09/2024, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application (Diary No.35868 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.153 of 2021) in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (earlier known ... same is restored on the file of this court for the purpose of the considering the same on the aforesaid issue only. 7. The miscellaneous application is consequently allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.” (Emphasis Supplied) 4. 9. On the perusal of above order, it becomes clear that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4852/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well but did not find any merit therein. The miscellaneous application is dismissed." 10. In view of the aforesaid, since the issue in dispute stands concluded in favour of the assessee, we do not find

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4835/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well but did not find any merit therein. The miscellaneous application is dismissed." In view of the aforesaid, since the issue in dispute stands concluded in favour of the assessee, we do not find

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissiioner of Income Tax Circle 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4727/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well but did not find any merit therein. The miscellaneous application is dismissed." 10. In view of the aforesaid, since the issue in dispute stands concluded in favour of the assessee, we do not find

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4496/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well but did not find any merit therein. The miscellaneous application is dismissed." In view of the aforesaid, since the issue in dispute stands concluded in favour of the assessee, we do not find

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 26(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4419/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well but did not find any merit therein. The miscellaneous application is dismissed. In view of the aforesaid, since the issue in dispute stands concluded in favour of the assessee, we do not find

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exeption) -Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4283/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well but did not find any merit therein. The miscellaneous application is dismissed." In view of the aforesaid, since the issue in dispute stands concluded in favour of the assessee, we do not find

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4282/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well but did not find any merit therein. The miscellaneous application is dismissed." 10. In view of the aforesaid, since the issue in dispute stands concluded in favour of the assessee, we do not find

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4156/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar & Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well but did not find any merit therein. The miscellaneous application is dismissed." In view of the aforesaid, since the issue in dispute stands concluded in favour of the assessee, we do not find

DCIT, Ltu, Circle- 1 & 2, New Delhi vs. Indian Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed at the behest of the assessee to settle the issue under VSVS

ITA 6039/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekdcit, Ltu, Circle 1 & 2, Vs. India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Great Eastern Centre, New Delhi. 70, Nehru Place, Ifci Tower, New Delhi – 110 019. (Pan : Aabci7552F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Order : 09.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals),-44, New Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.06.2018 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That Since The Assessee Has Settled The Issue Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (In Short ‘Vsvs’), Hence, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Has Become Infructuous & Deserves To Be Dismissed As Infructuous. In This Regard

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

assessee’s declaration made under VSVS is not accepted, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delay in communication of outcome under VSVS. [Revenue. M/s. Nannusamy Mohan

Raipur Realty Pvt Ltd, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 241/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Raipur Realty Pvt. Ltd. E-76, G.K. Chambers, Sector-2, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aahcr0621C ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143Section 263Section 96

denied on account of this fact alone.” 15. Thereafter, in Tarsem Singh’s (2) case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the miscellaneous application filed by the Union of India stating that the benefit of Tarsem Singh’s (1) case (supra) would apply prospectively, and observed as under ... what cannot be done directly should also not be done indirectly’. This Court has, on several occasions, disapproved of the practice of filing Miscellaneous Applications as a strategic litigation tactic aimed at neutralising judicial decisions and seeking a second opportunity for relief. 23. In all fairness, the only defense that