“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

M/S Sakaar Commercial (P) Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2184/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 137Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time barred, however, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C ) No. 3 of 2020, the period of filing appeal during the COVID- 19 pandemic is to be excluded

Samy Construction, Erode vs. The PCIT-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 419/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

that the delay was due to the spread of Covid-19 pandemic. 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

Duckwoo Autoind Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

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

ITA 232/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.232/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.S.Maruthu Pandian, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(b)

days. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated the period falling under delay is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 giving directions that the delay is to be condoned during this period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and further ... 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against

P. Ananthram, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Combatore Main Building, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.155/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 P. Ananth Ram, The Asst. Commissioner Of 36, West Venkataswamy Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbtore – 641 002. Coimbatore. [Pan: Anxpa-6262-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

before us stated that this delay is due to pandemic period of Covid-19 and subsequent events and 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. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay during the said period, respectfully following the same we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this

Hindusthan Engineering & Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central -1, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] "ी राजेश कुमार लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" I.T.(Ss)A. Nos. 19 To 25/Kol/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015-16 M/S Hindusthan Engineering & Vs. Acit, Central, Range-1, Kolkata Industries Ltd. (Pan: Aaach 8505 Q) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (" यथ")

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 35

201/Kol/2021 for AY AY 2016-17 is barred by limitation , however, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C ) No. 3 of 2020, the period of filing appeal during the COVID-19 pandemic is to be excluded

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Monsanto India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3490/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Darshan KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

therefore, the present appeal is dismissed as ‘withdrawn/not pressed’ in terms of the above-said 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

Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 316/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, C/O. Subash Agrawal & Vs Kolkata Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700069 [Pan : Aaacw2197D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16 /12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Though The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred, However, In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of 2021 In Smw(C) No. 3 Of 2020, The Period Of Filing Appeal During The Covid-19 Pandemic Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Counting The Limitation Period. In View Of This, The Appeal Is Treated As Filed Within The Limitation Period.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

pointed out that the appeal is time barred, however, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020, the period of filing appeal during the COVID-19 pandemic

Rooprekha Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 300/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, D/R

Section 250Section 68

falling between March, 2020 and December, 2020 to 31.03.2021. As the pandemic situation continues, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further on 27.04,2021 through Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No. 3/2020, has taken suo moto cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country

ITO, Chennai vs. C.Krishnamurthy, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/CHNY/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1166/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate

appeal filed by the Revenue on low tax effect, in light of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11.07.2018. The Revenue has filed a Miscellaneous Application and argued that issue involved in appeal comes under exception as provided in para 10(c) of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11.07.2018 and thus

ITO 3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Omega Investment & Properties Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 868/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.868/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer 3(2) (4) बिधम/ M/S. Omega Investment & Room No. 673,6Th Floor, Properties Ltd Vs. 32-B, Jolly Maker Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, No.2 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400020. 400021. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco0978L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. AR

Section 148Section 254Section 80Section 80I

light of observations made in this order and in the light of documents sought to be placed on record by the Assessee in his Miscellaneous Application dated 17 April 2018. 15. Appeal and Writ Petition are disposed of in the above terms. 16. In the light of the disposal

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

maintained at Jersey. Therefore, the remittances were received in Revenue Account maintained at Jersey. As per the terms of Master Rights Agreement, after 5 Miscellaneous Application arose out of the appeals filed by SET before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal disposed vide order dated 25.06.2010 reported

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Symantec Software Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 565/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & M/S Symantec Software Vs. Dcit, Circle – 14(3)(2) Solutions Pvt Ltd Mumbai. Unit No. 1801, 18Th Floor The Capital, Plot No. 70, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2624B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Rignesh Das.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Has Passed Ma No. 73 & 74/Mum/2021 In The Common Order Of Ita Nos. 565/Mum/2016 & 1906/Mum/2017 Dated 15.09.2017. The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Ma Has Considered The Assessee’S

For Appellant: Shri.Nikhil Tiwari.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rignesh Das.DR

filed by the assessee are also on the similar prayer. Therefore, both ITA No. 565/Mum/2016 & 1906/Mum/2017 M/s. Symantec Software Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 565/Mum/2016 A.Y 2011-12. 2. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that

ACIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Twinkle Diamonds, Mumbai

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

ITA 3315/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleasst. Cit – 16(3) Vs. M/S. Twinkle Matru Mandir, Tardeo Diamonds Road, Mumbai – 400007 404,Prasad Chambers Opera House, Mumbai – 400 001

For Appellant: Shri.Rignesh Das.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Mitesh Mehta.AR

Section 143(3)

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

The Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce Co.Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The DCIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 189/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

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

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Section 132(1)Section 133A

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because ... revenue's plea was that the violation of principles of natural justice was not fatal so as to jeopardize the entire proceedings. The said miscellaneous application was also rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 28-11- 2008. 30 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers Group 7. In view

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Shanti Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 133A

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Realty, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Section 132(1)Section 133A

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Section 132(1)Section 133A