← 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

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 748/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
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

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4295/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4294/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 4293/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2863/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2862/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2860/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 2859/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 10/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

M.R.Mukesh Maneklal Choksi, Mumbai vs. The CIT(Appeals)-22, Mumbai

ITA 954/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

group companies entitled M/s. Hire Agency Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6435 to 6441/M/2012 vide order dated 06.01.2016. 6. Thereafter the assessee by filing a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal sought to decide the issue as to allowance of 50% of expenses which was rejected vide order dated ... turnover” has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the first round of litigation having not been pressed and miscellaneous application against the same has also been dismissed, the assessee is not entitled to re-agitate the matter again by filing rectification application under section

M.R. Mukesh Maneklal Choksi, Mumbai vs. The CIT(Appeals)-22, Mumbai

ITA 953/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

group companies entitled M/s. Hire Agency Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6435 to 6441/M/2012 vide order dated 06.01.2016. 6. Thereafter the assessee by filing a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal sought to decide the issue as to allowance of 50% of expenses which was rejected vide order dated ... turnover” has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the first round of litigation having not been pressed and miscellaneous application against the same has also been dismissed, the assessee is not entitled to re-agitate the matter again by filing rectification application under section

M.R. Mukesh Maneklal Choksi, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-22, Mumbai

ITA 952/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

group companies entitled M/s. Hire Agency Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6435 to 6441/M/2012 vide order dated 06.01.2016. 6. Thereafter the assessee by filing a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal sought to decide the issue as to allowance of 50% of expenses which was rejected vide order dated ... turnover” has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the first round of litigation having not been pressed and miscellaneous application against the same has also been dismissed, the assessee is not entitled to re-agitate the matter again by filing rectification application under section

M.R.Mukesh Maneklal Choksi, Mumbai vs. The Comm of Income Tax (Appeals -22, Mumbai

ITA 951/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

group companies entitled M/s. Hire Agency Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6435 to 6441/M/2012 vide order dated 06.01.2016. 6. Thereafter the assessee by filing a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal sought to decide the issue as to allowance of 50% of expenses which was rejected vide order dated ... turnover” has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the first round of litigation having not been pressed and miscellaneous application against the same has also been dismissed, the assessee is not entitled to re-agitate the matter again by filing rectification application under section

M.R. Mukesh Maneklal Choksi, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-22, Mumbai

ITA 950/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

group companies entitled M/s. Hire Agency Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6435 to 6441/M/2012 vide order dated 06.01.2016. 6. Thereafter the assessee by filing a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal sought to decide the issue as to allowance of 50% of expenses which was rejected vide order dated ... turnover” has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the first round of litigation having not been pressed and miscellaneous application against the same has also been dismissed, the assessee is not entitled to re-agitate the matter again by filing rectification application under section

M.R. Mukesh Maneklal Chokshi, Mumbai vs. The CIT(Appeal)-22, Mumbai

ITA 949/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

group companies entitled M/s. Hire Agency Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6435 to 6441/M/2012 vide order dated 06.01.2016. 6. Thereafter the assessee by filing a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal sought to decide the issue as to allowance of 50% of expenses which was rejected vide order dated ... turnover” has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the first round of litigation having not been pressed and miscellaneous application against the same has also been dismissed, the assessee is not entitled to re-agitate the matter again by filing rectification application under section

M.R. Mukesh Maneklal Choksi, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-22, Mumbai

ITA 948/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

group companies entitled M/s. Hire Agency Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6435 to 6441/M/2012 vide order dated 06.01.2016. 6. Thereafter the assessee by filing a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal sought to decide the issue as to allowance of 50% of expenses which was rejected vide order dated ... turnover” has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the first round of litigation having not been pressed and miscellaneous application against the same has also been dismissed, the assessee is not entitled to re-agitate the matter again by filing rectification application under section

Ramesh J. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 823/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 823/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Ramesh J. Thakkar 26(3)(6) Mumbai 51, Moti Sagar,3Rd Road बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, Ganesh Gawde Road, Vs. Road, Church Gate, Mulund(W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 400080 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabpt4367L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Mehul Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Neeta Jeph सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/143(3), For The Ay 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Neeta Jeph
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68

Appeal of the Assessee is delayed by 345 days. Before us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that, due to Covid pandemic, the Supreme Court vide miscellaneous application No. 21 of 2022 has allowed all the appeals which were required to be filed during the period 15.03.2020-28.02.2022 to be excluded while

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 138/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

delay of 37 days (from 16.02.2020 to 24.03.2020) is excluding the period of limitation extended by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide judgement dated 10.01.2022 has further extended the period of limitation till 28.02.2022. The assessee has stated in the affidavit that

Sri. B.V. Ravikumar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 137/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

delay of 37 days (from 16.02.2020 to 24.03.2020) is excluding the period of limitation extended by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide judgement dated 10.01.2022 has further extended the period of limitation till 28.02.2022. The assessee has stated in the affidavit that

Smt. K.R. Geetha, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2306/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

delay of 37 days (from 16.02.2020 to 24.03.2020) is excluding the period of limitation extended by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide judgement dated 10.01.2022 has further extended the period of limitation till 28.02.2022. The assessee has stated in the affidavit that