← 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

Ratnala Kasi Viswanadha Choudary, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 358/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.358/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Ratnala Kasi Viswanadha Choudhary Income Tax Officer – Ward -1 D.No. 40-382, Maharajupeta Income Tax Office College Road, Bobbili Koppu Guarana Building Vizianagaram District – 535558 Siddartha Nagar Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram – 535002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Abepr5131Q]

Section 154

event of department not accepting the application of assessee under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, liberty is given to the assessee to file Miscellaneous Application for recall of this order and the Tribunal shall hear the appeal on merits after recalling this appeal. With these observations this appeal is disposed

Tapasvi Foundation Trust, Rajkot vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/AHD/2025[N. A.]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

listed for hearing on account of the original order passed by the ITAT dated 14.08.2025 being recalled for hearing afresh in lieu of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee in this regard being allowed by the ITAT in MA No.84/Ahd/2025, dated 14.08.2025. ITA No. 270/Ahd/2025 [ Tapasvi Foundation Trust

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

against ITAT order read with MA Order wherein the disallowance was deleted. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application and the ITAT, vide its order dated 31.05.2023 in MA No. 221/Del/2023 directed the assessing officer to delete the said disallowance. He further submitted that

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

against ITAT order read with MA Order wherein the disallowance was deleted. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application and the ITAT, vide its order dated 31.05.2023 in MA No. 221/Del/2023 directed the assessing officer to delete the said disallowance. He further submitted that

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

against ITAT order read with MA Order wherein the disallowance was deleted. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application and the ITAT, vide its order dated 31.05.2023 in MA No. 221/Del/2023 directed the assessing officer to delete the said disallowance. He further submitted that

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/RAN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

consultant of assessee had not attended tax-matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant had obtained various documents, and health caused delay in filing Miscellaneous Application that these circumstances and his against ex parte order passed on account of non-prosecution, Keeping in view of rule 24 of Income-tax Appellate ... Tribunal, 1963, delay in filling Miscellaneous Application was to be Condoned. In the case of Kashmir Road Lines v DCIT 2021] 123taxmann.com 5 (Amritsar-Trib) ITAT held that where assessee, claimed condonation of Delay of 124 days in filling appeal due to reason that appeal papers Were prepared and handed

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 200/RAN/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

consultant of assessee had not attended tax-matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant had obtained various documents, and health caused delay in filing Miscellaneous Application that these circumstances and his against ex parte order passed on account of non-prosecution, Keeping in view of rule 24 of Income-tax Appellate ... Tribunal, 1963, delay in filling Miscellaneous Application was to be Condoned. In the case of Kashmir Road Lines v DCIT 2021] 123taxmann.com 5 (Amritsar-Trib) ITAT held that where assessee, claimed condonation of Delay of 124 days in filling appeal due to reason that appeal papers Were prepared and handed

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/RAN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

consultant of assessee had not attended tax-matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant had obtained various documents, and health caused delay in filing Miscellaneous Application that these circumstances and his against ex parte order passed on account of non-prosecution, Keeping in view of rule 24 of Income-tax Appellate ... Tribunal, 1963, delay in filling Miscellaneous Application was to be Condoned. In the case of Kashmir Road Lines v DCIT 2021] 123taxmann.com 5 (Amritsar-Trib) ITAT held that where assessee, claimed condonation of Delay of 124 days in filling appeal due to reason that appeal papers Were prepared and handed

Alok Kumar, Kanke Road vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/RAN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

consultant of assessee had not attended tax-matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant had obtained various documents, and health caused delay in filing Miscellaneous Application that these circumstances and his against ex parte order passed on account of non-prosecution, Keeping in view of rule 24 of Income-tax Appellate ... Tribunal, 1963, delay in filling Miscellaneous Application was to be Condoned. In the case of Kashmir Road Lines v DCIT 2021] 123taxmann.com 5 (Amritsar-Trib) ITAT held that where assessee, claimed condonation of Delay of 124 days in filling appeal due to reason that appeal papers Were prepared and handed

Alok Kumar, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle Two

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 185/RAN/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

consultant of assessee had not attended tax-matter satisfactorily and new tax consultant had obtained various documents, and health caused delay in filing Miscellaneous Application that these circumstances and his against ex parte order passed on account of non-prosecution, Keeping in view of rule 24 of Income-tax Appellate ... Tribunal, 1963, delay in filling Miscellaneous Application was to be Condoned. In the case of Kashmir Road Lines v DCIT 2021] 123taxmann.com 5 (Amritsar-Trib) ITAT held that where assessee, claimed condonation of Delay of 124 days in filling appeal due to reason that appeal papers Were prepared and handed

Narendra Kachrulal Abad, Jalna vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 866/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.866/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Narendra Kachrulal Abad, V The Income Tax Officer, Abad House, Nal Galli, S Ward-1, Jalna. Kadrabad, Jalna – 431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Acspa9531C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Aurangabadpassed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 30.03.2019, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 03.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

this case, in ITA No.866/PUN/2019 for A.Y.2009-10 ITAT Pune decided the Assessee’s appeal ex-parte vide order dated 26.05.2022. The Assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application vide MA No.365/PUN/2022 against the order in ITA No.866/PUN/2019. The ITAT recalled the order dated 26.05.2022 in ITA No.866/PUN/2019 for A.Y.2009-10.Accordingly, the case

Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam, Tirumala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 519/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.519/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam Vs. Income Tax Officer Tirumala Ward 1(1) Pan:Aawts0401P Guntur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Uday & Gopi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Sri Bhuvaneswari Nilayam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-2,Ahmedabad (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dated 15/02/2024 For The A.Y 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 242 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. In This Regard, The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Uday & Gopi, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, SR-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

vide its order dated 20.02.2025, had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want affidavit in support of condonation of delay. Later on vide Miscellaneous Application No.15/Viz/2025, this Tribunal recalled its order on 08.08.2025. During the proceedings before us, the Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee could

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

ITA 169/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 115

Beena Pillai, J.M.: The Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of an order dated 28/02/2024 passed by this tribunal in miscellaneous application number 211/MUM/2024 in the above referred appeal. 2. It is noted that vide order passed dated 25/11/2024 in the miscellaneous application, this Tribunal noted that Ground ... wrongly held to the academic in nature and inadvertently not adjudicated while passing the original order. This Tribunal, accordingly by an order passed in miscellaneous application No. 211/Mum/2024 recalled its order for limited purpose to adjudicate Ground No.3, that reads as under: “3.0 GROUND

Gurumalleshwara Padavldharara Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1077/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pranava Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue
Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment year : 2019-20 Shri

Leaseplan Global Bv, Netherlands vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1989/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Poonam Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

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. [Re. M/s. Nannusamy Mohan

Maya Shikshan Pashishan Sansthan, Hathras vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Hathras

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250

Misc. app No. 665/2021 in suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020 in civil original jurisdiction and in re-cognizance of extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29/2022, in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c) no. 03/2020 and vide para 5(1) of its order dated

M/S. Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion Organisation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion C.I.T. (Exemptions), Organization, Vs. Chennai. 6-A/B/C, Mount Poonamallee Road, Nandambakkam-600089 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aabct 6725 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 2(15)Section 25Section 8

consequent to that passed in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority on 19.10.2022 and that of its Clarificatory Order passed on 03.11.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1849 of 2022, that had been relied upon by the Learned CIT (E) while passing the impugned Rejection Order.” 8 ITA1438/Chny/2025 M/s Tamil

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 800/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 10A

800/Chny/2022 AO / DRP or before us. 8. Against the above order of this Tribunal, the assessee filed its four separate Miscellaneous Applications in MA No. 4, 7 to 9/CHNY/2025 for the A.Ys.2016-17 to 2019-20 on the basis that: - the Hon’ble Bench had failed to consider ... tested as on 31.3.2014 either before the AO / DRP or before us. 70. Against the above order, the assessee filed its four separate Miscellaneous Applications in MA No. 4, 7 to 9/CHNY/2025 for the A.Ys.2016- 17 to 2019-20 on the basis that the Bench had failed to consider

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

ITA 799/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

Section 10ASection 115J

either before the AO / DRP or before us. 8. Against the above order of this Tribunal, the assessee filed its four separate Miscellaneous Applications in MA No. 4, 7 to 9/CHNY/2025 for the A.Ys.2016-17 to 2019-20 on the basis that: the Hon'ble Bench had failed

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 798/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &
Section 10A

800/Chny/2022 AO/ DRP or before us. 8. Against the above order of this Tribunal, the assessee filed its four separate Miscellaneous Applications in MA No. 4, 7 to 9/CHNY/2025 for the A.Ys.2016-17 to 2019-20 on the basis that: 9. the Hon’ble Bench had failed to consider ... tested as on 31.3.2014 either before the AO / DRP or before us. 70. Against the above order, the assessee filed its four separate Miscellaneous Applications in MA No. 4, 7 to 9/CHNY/2025 for the A.Ys.2016- 17 to 2019-20 on the basis that the Bench had failed to consider