← 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

Twenty First Century Management Services Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 860/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 860/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009 - 10 Twenty First Century The Acit, Management Services Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle-3(1), G3 No.67, Eldams Road, Chennai Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaact 2397L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, In Ita No.404(T)/Cit(A)-7/2016-17 Dated 21.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 28.06.2016. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Appeal Is Delayed By 169 Days. This Appeal Was Filed Before Tribunal Only On 26.10.2020 & As Per Form 36, The Order Of Cit(A) Was Received On 11.03.2020. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Delay Was Due To The Spread Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Nationwide Lockdown Imposed By The Government From 25.03.2020. 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 15.03.2020 To 14.03.2021 & 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 & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 47

spread of Covid-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown imposed by the Government from 25.03.2020. 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 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and they have condoned ... 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. At the outset, it is noticed that

M/S. Param Anand Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assssee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7726/MUM/1994[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 1986-87

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.7726 & 7727/Mum/1994 (A.Ys. 1986-87 & 1987-88) Param Anand Builders Vs. Ito, 6(1) Llp (F Orm Er Ly K Now N As Param Ana Nd Piramal Chambers, B Uilder S P. Lt D. ) Lalbaug, Parel, Plot No. 13/A, Agarwal Bombay – 400 012 Golden Chamber, Fun Republic Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaxfp7195C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: K. ShivramFor Respondent: Samuel Pitta
Section 132Section 132(5)Section 69A

ITAT vide order dated 29.03.1996 dismissed the appeal of the assessee and allowed all the appeal of the revenue. 5. The assessee thereafter filed miscellaneous application u/s 254 of the Act stating that there was an excess addition on account of on money in the case of the assessee ... project percentage method whereas in the last two years the Tribunal has applied project completion method. The Tribunal has rejected the assessee’s miscellaneous application. Thereafter, the assessee has challenged the ITAT’s miscellaneous application order by filing writ petition before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay

ACIT Circle 6(1), Mumbai vs. Param Anand Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assssee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3707/MUM/1992[ 1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.7726 & 7727/Mum/1994 (A.Ys. 1986-87 & 1987-88) Param Anand Builders Vs. Ito, 6(1) Llp (F Orm Er Ly K Now N As Param Ana Nd Piramal Chambers, B Uilder S P. Lt D. ) Lalbaug, Parel, Plot No. 13/A, Agarwal Bombay – 400 012 Golden Chamber, Fun Republic Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaxfp7195C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: K. ShivramFor Respondent: Samuel Pitta
Section 132Section 132(5)Section 69A

ITAT vide order dated 29.03.1996 dismissed the appeal of the assessee and allowed all the appeal of the revenue. 5. The assessee thereafter filed miscellaneous application u/s 254 of the Act stating that there was an excess addition on account of on money in the case of the assessee ... project percentage method whereas in the last two years the Tribunal has applied project completion method. The Tribunal has rejected the assessee’s miscellaneous application. Thereafter, the assessee has challenged the ITAT’s miscellaneous application order by filing writ petition before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay

Shri. Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 820/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234DSection 250

during Covid Period i.e. from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022, which needs to be excluded in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Moto WP No.(C) No.3 of 2020 in Re: Cognizance of Limitation dated

Aci T-CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Thane

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1003/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 80I

However, the matter was dismissed in limine because of non-appearance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal to recall the said order. While the said Miscellaneous Application was pending before the Tribunal, by way of abundant precaution the assessee filed appeals before ... High Court the Counsel of the assessee brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court the fact that the Tribunal in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee had recalled its order and the said matter was now fixed for hearing on 15/02/2013. As such the assessee requested

Aci T-CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Thane

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1002/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 80I

However, the matter was dismissed in limine because of non-appearance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal to recall the said order. While the said Miscellaneous Application was pending before the Tribunal, by way of abundant precaution the assessee filed appeals before ... High Court the Counsel of the assessee brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court the fact that the Tribunal in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee had recalled its order and the said matter was now fixed for hearing on 15/02/2013. As such the assessee requested

Aci -CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Thane

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1001/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 80I

However, the matter was dismissed in limine because of non-appearance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal to recall the said order. While the said Miscellaneous Application was pending before the Tribunal, by way of abundant precaution the assessee filed appeals before ... High Court the Counsel of the assessee brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court the fact that the Tribunal in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee had recalled its order and the said matter was now fixed for hearing on 15/02/2013. As such the assessee requested

Aci -CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1000/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 80I

However, the matter was dismissed in limine because of non-appearance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal to recall the said order. While the said Miscellaneous Application was pending before the Tribunal, by way of abundant precaution the assessee filed appeals before ... High Court the Counsel of the assessee brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court the fact that the Tribunal in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee had recalled its order and the said matter was now fixed for hearing on 15/02/2013. As such the assessee requested

Mrs. Bharathi Dhanuka, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

ITA 174/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.174/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Bharati Dhanuka, The Principal Commissioner 175, Th Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Chennai – 600 081. Chennai-8. [Pan: Aaqpj-2406-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Samdariya Fateh Chand, Fca : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of : 21.10.2022 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8 In Revision No. Pcit, Chennai-8/Revision-263/100000162379/2020 Dated 17.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). :- 2 -:

For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 263

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

ACIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rex Tone Industrties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 741/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-13(3)(1) Vs. M/S Rex-Tone Industries Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, Ltd., 501, Advent Atria, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Chincholi Bunder Road, Road, Mumbai – 20 Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr1956K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 35

Amarjit Singh (AM): Vide ITA No.741/Mum/2017, dated 03.08.2018 the appeal of the revenue was dismissed due to low tax effect. Subsequently, the revenue filed miscellaneous application stating that tax effect in this case was more than the monetary limit as per Circular No. 3/2018 of the CBDT. Therefore, order

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 799/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended with effect from 15.03.2020 which was subsequently further extended vide Order 27.04.2021 in MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2022 with effect from 15.03.2021 which was in effect till 28.02.2022. In the ITA Nos. 798 & 799/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 10 circumstances

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 798/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended with effect from 15.03.2020 which was subsequently further extended vide Order 27.04.2021 in MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2022 with effect from 15.03.2021 which was in effect till 28.02.2022. In the ITA Nos. 798 & 799/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 10 circumstances

M/S. Kirtilal Kalidas Jewellers (P) Ltd., Cimbatore vs. ACIT(Corporate Circle-2), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 151/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T. Banusekar, CharteredFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

fact that ‘Covid-19’ pandemic was prevalent during the period and in term of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, we condone the delay of 16 days and admit the appeal of the Assessee

Franklin Templeton Management (India) P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Range-6(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Franklin Templeton Dy. Cit–Range 6(3)(1) Management (India) P. Ltd. Room No.506, 5 Th Floor, 12Th& 13Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, India Bulls Finance Center, Vs. Tower–2, Senapati Bapat M.K. Road, Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaact1609B Assessee By : Shri Farooq Irani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vrinda U Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Farooq Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vrinda U Matkari, DR
Section 250Section 253Section 32(1)

said year the issue was pending before the ITA which was later decided on 21/6/2019 in ITA number 1597/M/2017 along with miscellaneous application number 219/M/2019. Assessment year 2012 – 13, 2013 – 14 and 2014 – 15: the assessee claimed depreciation on the amount of goodwill in the return for the above- Franklin ... correct, then the depreciation would be a should be granted from the beginning.” This order of the coordinate bench was also subject to a miscellaneous application number 31/2017 dated 1/9/2017 wherein it was partly modified by removing certain lines of para number 8.6” the AO shall verify the factual assertions

Income Tax Officer, TDS-1, Mumabi vs. M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 715/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Abdul Memon, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

Supreme Court in is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd. M/s Blue Star Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of Miscellaneous Application

Income Tax Officer, TDS-1 Thane, Thane vs. M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 714/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Abdul Memon, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

Supreme Court in is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd. M/s Blue Star Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of Miscellaneous Application

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

days (excluding the period of delay from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 by relying on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 and No.665 of 2021). The assessee was also advised to file an application for condonation of delay in filling the appeal before

Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

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

ITA 826/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Glaxo Smith Kline The Pcit-8, Pharmaceuticals Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gsk House, Dr. Annie Besant Vs. Mumbai-400020. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4414 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

wants to press the grounds However, in case, the assessee wants to press the grounds raised, the assessee is at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application raised, the assessee is at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application raised, the assessee is at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for seeking

Bhavesh Ghanshyam Advani, Mumbai vs. CIT(Intl Tax)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5808/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

delay with a direction to the concerned Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. Against this order of ITAT, Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) vide M.A. No. 126/Mum/2019 under section 254(2) of the Act. In its M.A., Department raised the ground that order passed under section

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 957/MUM/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

debit note seized by the department from VAIPL was pertaining to AY. 1999-2000. Appeals were filed to ITAT and several Miscellaneous Applications were filed to ITAT by VAIPL. The appeals were originally dismissed by ITAT. In the M.A the orders were recalled and the issue was allowed. The department