“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

Shamji Maya & Sons, Bhuj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhuj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 93/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shamji Maya & Sons, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Narayan Chambers, Ward-2, Bank Of Baroda Bldg., Bhuj-Kutch Station Road, Bhuj Pan : Abdfs 5703 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 19.02.2016 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. In The First Round Of Litigation, The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.07.2019 In Ita No.93/Rjt/2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12, Had Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. However, The Assessee Moved A Miscellaneous Application Praying Recall Of The Order On The Ground That The Alternate Contention Raised By The Assessee To Tax The Undisclosed Contract Receipts Of Rs.15,41,000/- On Estimated Basis, In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs.Industries, Reported In (2002) 124 Taxman 654 (Guj), As Relied Upon By The Assessee, Was Not Considered By The Tribunal While Adjudicating The Case. The Tribunal, Therefore, Vide Order Dated 16.09.2022 Recalled The Appeal In View Of The Judgement Of Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)

order dated 30.07.2019 in ITA No.93/Rjt/2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12, had dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application praying recall of the order on the ground that the alternate contention raised by the assessee to tax the undisclosed contract receipts of Rs.15

Shri Umesh Kumar Bharati, Verna vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range, Panaji

ITA 3/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshalim.A.Nos.3 & 4/Pan./2022 Arising Out Of Ita.Nos.179 & 180/Pan./2018 - Assessment Year 2014-2015 Shri Jayagouda Shivagouda Patil Pan Apupp2550B & The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Bharati Jayagouda Vs. Patil, Pan Bfdpp1740Mj Ward – 1, Gokak. 1166, Hanuman Nilay, Patil Galli, Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi. (Applicants) (Respondent) For Assessees : Shri Pramod Y Vaidya For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 254(2)

Vaidya For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date of Hearing : 11.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee’s twin miscellaneous applications filed u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") seeks to recall/recall the tribunal’s common order dated 06.04.2022 allowing ... perused. 2 MA.Nos.3 &4/PAN./2022 2. Learned counsel representing the assessee has filed a letter dated 05.08.2023 seeking to withdraw the instant twin miscellaneous applications reading as under : 3. Learned DR has expressed no objection. 4. We, therefore, dismiss these assessee’s twin miscellaneous applications of the assessee

Divisional Ajmer Technical Institute Association, Merta City vs. Commisioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 4/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(1)

above fall within the Covid period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition © No.3 of 2020 and subsequent Miscellaneous Applications thereon, had passed orders from time to time extending the limitation period due to covid pandemic. We notice that all the dates mentioned hereinabove

Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 90/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya Income Tax Officer, 59, Shradha Deep Society, Ward-3(2)(1), Surat Vs Singanpore, Causewayroad, Ved Road, Surat-395004 Pan No: Amupv 4454 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 16.01.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac”/Ld.Cit(A) Dated 28.12.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 23.10.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Nirav B Vaghasiya Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Same Is Duly Reflected In Form No 26As Of The Appellant. 1.1 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing The Tds Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Capital Gain On Sale Of Property Was Offered For Taxation In The Hands Of Partnership Form & No Revenue Loss Incurred To The Department. 1.2 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Credit To The Appellant Though No Income Against Such Tds Credit Was Earned By The Appellant Against Such Tds Credit.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194ISection 254(1)

delay in filing appeal. The assessee has placed on record copy of order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 10.01.2022 passed by in Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 21of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020), wherein due sever pandemic of Covid-19 in the Country, the time

M/S Lok Vikas Housing Funds Ltd.( Now Lok Vikas Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. The Addl.CIT Range-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/JPR/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 254(1)Section 269DSection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Ltd. 38 ITD 320. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed as unadmitted. Thereafter, miscellaneous application was filed in 2008 and the miscellaneous application was numbered as No. 21/JP/2008. The said miscellaneous application was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench ... this fact, the co- ordinate Bench decided the appeal of the assessee on merits vide order dated 09.08.2019. Thereafter, the assessee again filed miscellaneous application in MA No. 11/JP/2021 and expressly 3 M/s Lok Vikas Housing Funds Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Jaipur demonstrated the reason behind non compliance

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1567/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

income of the Appellant will be NIL." 35. The revenue authorities thereafter filed, (Para 5 on Page 260 of Paperbook Part 1) a Miscellaneous Application (MA) before the ITAT to revise the earlier order on the ground that, even after holding that the Appellant's predecessor

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Shri Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangluru, Surat

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

ITA 139/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.139/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Motawada Steet, At & Po. Hazira, Bangluru. Tal: Choryasi, Surat – 394270. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amhpp6575A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deven Kapadia, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/01/2023 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43Section 43B

before due date of filling return and accordingly are allowable u/s 43B of the act. In view of the above, the assesse has filled Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) on 23.08.2022 to the Hon'ble ITAT bench and the hon'ble bench by considering the M.A. pronounced an order

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam vs. Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society, Haripuram

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 209/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.209/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Vs. Primary Agricultural Co- Ward-1 Operative Credit Society Srikakulam 1-116, Haripuram Mandasa, Srikakulam [Pan : Aacap0308D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, DR

above, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. Hence, the same is dismissed with a liberty to the revenue to file Miscellaneous Application to recall the order in case the tax effect involved is more than the limit prescribed as per the circular or the case is covered

Raj Veer Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 964/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A K Arora, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

order dated 08.08.2018 in ITA 964/Del/2015 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on 3 ITA.No. 964/Del./2015 account of non-prosecution. Thereafter assessee filed miscellaneous application before the Tribunal seeking the recalling of the ex-parte order passed on 08.08.2017. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide miscellaneous application ... 149/Del/2021 order dated 11.11.2021 allowed the miscellaneous application of the assessee and recalled the order in ITA No. 964/Del/2015. Accordingly, the assessee is now in appeal in second round and has raised the following grounds:- 1(i). That on the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO-6(1)(1), Mum vs. Shm Products P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2098/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren ShroffFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

Section 147

cogent reasons/evidences that these appeals are covered under exceptions carved out in aforesaid CBDT circular, the Revenue is hereby granted liberty to file miscellaneous application(s) praying for recall of these orders in accordance with law. We order accordingly. 4. In the result, all the three appeals filed

ITO - 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Raghuveer Suburban Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed on this technical ground

ITA 3008/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR

Right now the appeal of Department is being dismissed as the same is against a non-existing entity with a liberty to file Miscellaneous Application in future, if the assessee-company gets revived either by assessee itself or by the Department. 5. In view of above, instead of going into

Swiss Re Services India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed protanto

ITA 1898/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1898/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Swiss Re Services India P. Ltd. Unit 701-702, Peninsula Corporate Park Tower A, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aahcs5626E बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 2(3)(2) Room No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent M K Marg, Mumbai 400020 अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv& Shri Hiten Chande, Adv ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Akhtar Ansari, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv&For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ansari, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)

appeal is in second round before the Tribunal. The appeal was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.01.2020. Thereafter, the assessee 2 filed miscellaneous application MA No. 93/Mum/2021 seeking rectification of mistake in not adjudicating ground No. 1.4 of Revised grounds of appeal. The Tribunal vide order dated ... allowed the aforesaid miscellaneous application and recalled the order dated 06.01.2020 for the limited purpose of adjudicating ground No. 1.4 in the Revised grounds of Appeal. The relevant extract of the order in MA No. 93/Mum/2021 is reproduced below: - “8. Upon careful consideration we note that in the aforesaid ITAT

Bharati Rani Saha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Tribunal on 26.07.2022. If credit of number of days allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated September 23, 2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding cognizance for extension of limitation, even then there is substantial delay

Bharati Rani Saha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-61(3), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Bharati Rani Saha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 61(3), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 421/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Smt. Sabapathy Kalaiselvi, Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 619/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

Covid-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown imposed by the Government from 25.03.2020. The assessee has also stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period ... they have condoned the delay up to 28.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022. In term of the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal by assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only issue

Thrivei Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT, Central Circle (I/C), Salem

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

ITA 674/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

M/S Manish Prakash Mutha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 3(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mantri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 40

already been excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation by the Hon’ble Supreme 2 Mr. Manish Prakash Mutha Court in miscellaneous application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu writ petition (C) No.3 of 2020 vide order dated January

The Colaba Central Co-Op Consumers Wholesale and Retail Stores Ltd, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (AO), Mumbai

ITA 2583/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Bhandari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, D.R

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

same on 07.09.2021 with the delay of 105 days. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court by taking cognizance of the covid 19 pandemic vide miscellaneous application No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) 3 of 2020 ordered to exclude the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021. Assessee’s delay of 105 days