“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

DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Genesis Color Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the department isdismissed

ITA 382/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 268A

appellate orders, therefore, in such cases, we also give liberty to revenue that if such instances comes to their notice than, revenue may file miscellaneous application with such evidences. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the department isdismissed. Order was announced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the presence

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S. Herbert Smith Freehills Llc, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5647/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

effect involved in the appeal is below Rs.50 lakhs. However, it is made clear that the Department is at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for recalling of the order, if the tax effect is found to be more than the prescribed limit of Rs.50

ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Hi Pint Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 796/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 268A

orders. We, therefore, give liberty to Revenue in such cases where the instances stated in para No 10 of the Circular exist, to file miscellaneous application with evidences. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 9th February

Davindra Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3873/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

quashed. Ground no. 1 & 2 of the appeal of assessee were accordingly allowed without deciding the appeal on merits. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application No. 141/2018 against the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by SMC Bench. The Revenue explained in the miscellaneous application that the order dated ... assessee through speed post before the date of assessment. However, there was no compliance made by the assessee. The Revenue also contended in the miscellaneous application that Ld. CIT(A) also ongoing through the record decided the issue against the assessee that notice u/s 142(1) dated 11.11.2016 was sent

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 275/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

effect involved in the appeals are below Rs.50 lakhs. However, it is made clear that the Department is at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for recalling of the order, if the tax effect is found to be more than the prescribed limit of Rs.50

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 274/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sarvodaya Realtors (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 3509/DEL/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Assessee by Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date of Hearing 22.01.201 Date of Pronouncement 22.01.2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM The Revenue through this Miscellaneous Application requests the Tribunal to recall the exparte order dated 24.08.2018 passed by it dismissing the appeal No. 3509/Del/2016 filed by the Revenue on account ... effect. 2. Ld. DR, referring to the contents of the miscellaneous application, submitted that the tax effect involved in the grounds raised by the revenue is more than Rs. 20 lacs. The Tribunal, however, has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue by relying on the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated

ITO, Gurgaon vs. Shri Satbir Singh, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 3424/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT/ DRFor Respondent: Sh. K. Sampath, C.A. &

Section 268A

orders. We, therefore, give liberty to Revenue in such cases where the instances stated in para No 10 of the Circular exist, to file miscellaneous application with evidences. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/01/2021. (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL

ITO, Gurgaon vs. Shri Satya Pal, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 3423/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT/ DRFor Respondent: Sh. K. Sampath, C.A. &

Section 268A

ITO, Gurgaon vs. Sh. Raj Singh, Haryana

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 3421/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT/DR &For Respondent: Sh. K. Sampath, C.A. &

Section 268A

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 6080/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv

Section 268A

ACIT, Circle- 3, Noida vs. Resident Welfare Association Township, New Delhi

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

ITA 5087/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Vs. Resident Welfare Association Circle-3, Township, Noida Gurinder Vihar, Awho Township, Pocket-P5, Sector-Chi-I, Greater Noida, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

appellate orders, therefore, in such cases, we also give liberty to revenue that if such instances comes to their notice than, revenue may file miscellaneous application with such evidences. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the department filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court

Sh. Mahesh Prakash Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6113/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhuand, Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Sh. Mahesh Prakash Vs. Ito, Sharma, Ward – 37(2), 430, Hawa Singh Block, New Delhi Asiad Village, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Aaaps 3525 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi Passed Under Section 143(3)/147 Of The Act, 1961 Order Dated 18.08.2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under: A.Ys. 2007-08 3. Assessee Is An Individual Stated To Be Doctor Deriving Income From Profession, Salary, House Property & Other Sources. Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2007-08 Declaring Total Income At Rs.5,84,935/- & The Same Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened For Reassessment U/S 147 & Accordingly Notice U/S 148 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Framed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 11.03.2014 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 15,84,940/-.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28

vide order passed in ITA No.6173/Del/2015 order dated 16.08.2016 had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non prosecution. Thereafter, assessee filed Miscellaneous Application requesting for recalling of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide MA order dated 03.04.2019 (MA No.26/Del/2018) recalled the order of Tribunal

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Orient Bell Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 7533/DEL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Vs. Orient Bell Ltd, Circle-19(1), Iris House, Business Centre, New Delhi Nangal Raya, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0305P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 268A

appellate orders, therefore, in such cases, we also give liberty to revenue that if such instances comes to their notice than, revenue may file miscellaneous application with such evidences. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14/01/2021. -/- (H.S.SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT

Bharti Televentures vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 1656 / 2010HC Delhi18 Dec 2012

Bench: The L'Ribunal L'Hc Questions Of Law Sought To Be Urged Are - (T) Whelher Lhe Tnbunul ./All Rrtlo Crror Tn Holdrng Lhal Il,35,05,869 - Parcl B.), Tlrc.I.!.!R'.\5'Cs Cts Tnstallalion Expendrlure By The Assessee Was Coptt.Tl Ttt Ttulitra & Has Lo Be Lrealed As Su Ch I N Usse S.Vnte N L Proce E D T T T G.\') Ftr) Ll/Hether Lhe Lribuncrl/Cll Rttr., Arror Til Hol&Ng Lhat Lhe Sofltt,Are Expenses Lo Lhe Exlant Of I,69,35,669,- Rrtcun'Ecl By Lhe As.Se.S.Sec V'Ere Captlal Rn Nalure') (Iii) Whelher Lhe [Ribunal Wus.Ltrsti/Ied Itt Cfusollov,Ittg The Nght Of Ull The Sunt Of Q,33,76,671 - Crore.S Us Becldcbt Has Bustness Lo.Ts?" 2 The Assessee Inter Alia Engagcs Itsclf In Thc Promotion & Establishing Telecom Services & Allied Activities, Including Mobilc & Cellular Services. Pursuant To Its Main Object It Leased To M/S L-]Harti 'L'Clcnct Certain Plant & Machinery Llharti I]'N 1 395/2006 &. 165612T0 Page I Ol'10 2012:Dhc:7825-Db

After the submissions were nradc and tirc inipugned order was passed, the appellant apparently moved a miscellaneous application for correction/ rectification which was allowed by thc Tribunal but rvrthout any changc in the result. The assessee underlined the fact that the software lcasc was not an intcgral part

CIT vs. Krishna Jain

ITA - 1780 / 2010HC Delhi29 Nov 2012

notice to the parties fixing the date for hearing. ITA 1780/2010 Page 2 of3 i-tr\ 2012:DHC:7926-DB ( @ 4. Consequently, all the miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. ITA No.1780/2010 is allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BIIAT, J It [\\* - R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER29,2ol2 hs ITA 1780/2010 Page

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Smt. Renu Gupta

ITA - 156 / 2009HC Delhi29 Nov 2012

accordingly restored to the file of the Tribunal which shall issue notice to the parties fixing the date for hearing. 4. Consequently, all the miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. ITA No. 156/2009 is allowed in the above terms. NOVEMBER 29, 2012 hs S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J R.V.EASWAR, J ITA 156/2009

Dharampal Satyapal vs. C.I.T

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA - 4 / 1999HC Delhi24 Jan 2011

Bench: Us Has Impugned Two Additions Sustained By The Tribunal. The First One Being: An Addition In The Sum Of Rs 34,20,635/- To Its Trading Results. The Second Being: An Addition In The Sum Of Rs 1,54,477/- On Account Of Excess Production Of Finished Stock, Which According To The Department Ought To Have Remained In Stock On The Last Day Of The Accounting Year. 2. The Brief Facts Which Give Rise To The Present Appeal Are As Follows: 2.1 The Appellant, Which Is Constituted As A Partnership Firm, In The Relevant Assessment Year, Was In The Business Of Manufacture & Sale Of Scented Tobacco, Also Known As Zarda. The Appellant Claims, It Has Been Carrying On This Business Since 2011:Dhc:412-Db

For Appellant: Mr C S Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar, Adv

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(2)Section 260A

Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 30.10.1998 sustained the order of the CIT(A). The appellant did not rest there; it chose to prefer a miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 15.10.99 dismissed the said miscellaneous application

C.I.T vs. V.L.S.Finance Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1148 / 2008HC Delhi16 Oct 2008

Bench: This Court Being Ita Nos. 115/2006, 125/2006 & 129/2006 Which Had Been Admitted For Hearing. However, The Present Appeals Arise Out Of The Said Order Dated 15 02 2008 H B Th ‟ Tifi Ti Li Ti D 2008:Dhc:2851-Db

Section 254Section 254(1)Section 254(2)

Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the said Act‟) in respect of miscellaneous application Nos. 611, 612 and 613/Del/2006. The rectification applications had been filed by the assessee in respect of the tribunal‟s earlier common order dated

C.I.T vs. V.L.S.Finance Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1221 / 2008HC Delhi16 Oct 2008

Section 254Section 254(1)Section 254(2)