← 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

Shri Kanhaiya Lal Saraf, Ambikapur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur, Ambikapur (Cg)

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

ITA 172/RPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kanhaiya Lal Saraf Sadar Road, P.O Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (C.G) Pan: Apeps2292D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 254(2)

dated 28.11.2024 as no appeal was pending as on 22.07.2024. Thereafter, 3 Shri Kanhaiya Lal Saraf Vs. ITO, Ward-Ambikapur (C.G.) the assessee filed miscellaneous application to recall the order passed in ITA No.172/RPR/2017 and the same was also rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of delay itself vide ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the Tribunal does not have the power to condone the delay for delayed filing of miscellaneous application. 3. The assessee further carried the matter before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. In this regard, the Hon’ble High Court vide WPT No.65

Mr Apresh Tukaram Khot, Raigad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel, Circle-Panvel

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 209/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 147oSection 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Bench. The Assessee filed Miscellaneous Petition MA No. 63/PUN/2024 . The ITAT order dated 16/04/2024 was recalled vide ITA No.209/PUN/2024[A] order dated 11.03.2025 in Miscellaneous Application of the assessee. 3. Accordingly, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 26/03/2025. The assessee sought adjournment on 26/03/2025. Then on various dates

Kalpesh Dhanjibhai Makasana, Surendranagar vs. Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1231/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed." 10.1. On filing Miscellaneous Application against the Tribunal order, Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the Revenue Miscellaneous Application by observing as follows: "3. We have considered the submissions ... allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Since there is no mistake apparent on record from the order passed by the Tribunal, the Miscellaneous Application was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Thus dismissed the Revenue’s appeal by observing as follows: “5. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. Expression Novelties Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1351/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

then the Revenue will be at liberty to file a I.T.A. No.: 1351/KOL/2025 & CO No. 60/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Expression Novelties Pvt. Ltd. Miscellaneous Application for recall of this order and revival of the appeal. Such an application should be filed within the time limit provided

Anant Bajaj Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1995/MUM/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Anant Bajaj Trust Deputy Director Of Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Bengaluru Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 (Pan: Aagta3192B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate & Shri M. A. Gohel, Ca Revenue : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Shri M. A. Gohel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Anant Bajaj Trust AY 2022-23 3. This appeal is a recalled matter by way of an order dated 04.02.2025 passed in the Miscellaneous Application No. 226, Mumbai 2024 filed by the assessee, for adjudicating ground No. 1 of this appeal. The observation and finding given by the Coordinate Bench ... Para 3 while allowing the Miscellaneous Application, is reproduced below for ready reference: “3. In our considered opinion, we find that the Bench inadvertently overlooked Ground No. 1 raised before it, which pertains to the adjustment of income u/s. 143(1) without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard

M/S Takata India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6835/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Takata India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 25(1), (Now Joyson Anand Abhishek New Delhi Safety Systems Pvt Ltd.,) Plot No.20, Sector-5, Imt Manesar, Gurugram (Haryana)-122050 Pan/Gir No. Aacct 7200 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Jadhav, CIT (DR)

that the present appeal was earlier heard and decided ex-party by the Co-ordinate Bench on 17.9.2018. Thereafter, the assessee has filed Miscellaneous application registered as ITA No.6835/Del2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 9 No.761/Del/2018 and the matter was recalled by the Co-ordinate Bench

East India Machine Company, Kolkata vs. ITO W-2, Imphal, Manipur

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

ITA 277/GTY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Ito, Wd-2, Imphal East India Machine Company Aaykar Bhavan Old 501A Diamond Prestige 5 Th Floor, 41A Ajc Bose Road, Lambulane, Jail Road, Imphal, Vs. West Bengal, Pin-700017 Manipur-795001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaefe5407D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR

Scheme). Hence, we are dismissing the appeal as withdrawn with a liberty to the assessee to get the appeal revived by filing necessary miscellaneous application if East India Machine company; A.Y. 2019-20 the assessee is not successful in the VSVS-24, for any reason, whatsoever. 04. In the result

ACIT, Circle-4, Patna vs. M/S Shandilya Syndicate & Co., Patna

In the result, all the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 210/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Shandilya Syndicate & Co. Tax, Circle-4, Opp. Road No.5, Punaichak, 4Th Floor, Lnjp Bhawan, Vs. Patna-800023, Bihar Dak Bunglow Road, Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abifs5195D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR

effect is more or this case falls in any of the exceptions provided in this Instruction. Then Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for revival of the appeal. Such application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act. 3. In the result

The Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Circle-Gandhinagar (Previously DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan), Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 738/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri A P Nanavaty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)

being bank under liquidation administered by official liquidator being official of Cooperation Department holds more than one charge and therefore appeal was filed without Miscellaneous Application for Condonation of Delay by bonafide and inadvertent mistake, such fact ought to have been brought to the notice of officiating official liquidator ... appellate order was passed dismissing the appeal without specific notice of non-filing of Miscellaneous Application for Condonation of Delay. 3. Assessee now files application for condonation of delay and earnestly pray to consider miscellaneous application for condonation of delay and after admitting such miscellaneous application for condonation of delay

The Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd (Under Liquidation), Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Circle-Gandhinagar (Previously DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan), Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1414/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.738, 1414 & 1415/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) The Visnagar Nagarik Sahakari The Assistant Commissioner Bank Ltd.,(Under Liquidation) बनाम Of Income Tax, / Market Yard, Circle Gandhinagar. V/S. Visnagar, (Previously Dcit, Mehsana-384315, Patan Circle, Patan) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaft8764C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A P Nanavaty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”], All Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Arising From The Assessments Framed By The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Patan [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Assessing Officer Or Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri A P Nanavaty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(4)

being bank under liquidation administered by official liquidator being official of Cooperation Department holds more than one charge and therefore appeal was filed without Miscellaneous Application for Condonation of Delay by bonafide and inadvertent mistake, such fact ought to have been brought to the notice of officiating official liquidator ... appellate order was passed dismissing the appeal without specific notice of non-filing of Miscellaneous Application for Condonation of Delay. 3. Assessee now files application for condonation of delay and earnestly pray to consider miscellaneous application for condonation of delay and after admitting such miscellaneous application for condonation of delay

ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Darkin Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.315/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Acit, Central Cirlce-4(3), Vs Darkin Distributors Private Limited Kolkata 35, 5Th Floor, 1, R.N.Mukherjee Road, West Bengal-700001 Pan No. :Aabcd 0880 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Shubhankar Ghosh, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.09.2017, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-22, Kolkata, For The Assessment Year 1992-93. 2. With The Assistance Of Ld Sr.Dr, We Have Gone Through The Grounds Raised By The Revenue. It Is Pertinent To Note That The Tax Effect By Virtue Of Relief Given By The First Appellate Authority Is Less Than Rs.60,00,000/-. As Per Cbdt Instruction Bearing No. 9 Of 2024 Issued On 17Th September, 2024, Cbdt Has Directed Its Subordinate Authorities Not To Challenge The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) Before Tribunal If Tax Effect By Virtue Of Relief Given By The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Is Less Than Rs.60,00,000/-. Such Order Could Only Be Challenged If It Comes Within Exceptions Provided In The Instruction. Therefore, The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Does Not Fall In Any Of The Exceptions And, This Appeal Is Not Maintainable.

For Appellant: Shri Shubhankar Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR

effect is more or this case falls in any of the exceptions provided in this Instruction, then Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for revival of this appeal. Such application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act. 4. In the result, appeal

Shri. Balaji Vividodeeshagala Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 827/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

that after considering the exclusion period granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 and Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 (extending limitation from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 with further 90 days), the effective delay is reduced to 656 days

Shashikalaprakash, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 758/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Channappa Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 43B

Form-35 claimed that applying the . Page 3 of 8 ratio of the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27th April 2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, the delay is only for 304 days. The assessee further stated the reason

K L D A V College, Roorkee vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(4), Roorkee

In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3300/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3300/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2021-22 & M.A No.73/Chny/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3300/Chny/2025) िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kldav College, The Income Tax Officer, Railway Road, Vs. Ward-1(3)(4), Roorkee – 247 667. Roorkee / Uttarakhand. The Ddit, Cpc, [Pan: Aaaak 5649L Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Written submission by ShriFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. CIT

Hearing : 22.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : MA No.73/Chny/2025: By way of this Miscellaneous Application (M.A.), the assessee seeks recall of the ex-parte order of the Tribunal dated 19.03.2025 in ITA No.3300/Chny/2024, wherein the appeal of the assessee ... requires to be recalled and accordingly, the said order is recalled and re-fixed for the dismissal as withdrawn. In view of this, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. The Ld. A.R. has submitted that incorrect jurisdictional details were inadvertently mentioned in Form No. 36 while

DCIT Cir. 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1279/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

assessee is dismissed subject to removal of remarks by the Id. CIT(A) as observed hereinabove." 37. Subsequently, the assessee preferred a Miscellaneous Application against the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). Vide order dated 07/12/2020 passed in Central Bank of India V/s DCIT, in MA No. 153/Mum./2020 ... assessment year 2012-13, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and modified its order as follows:- “5. We find that the Id. CIT(A) had issued enhancement notice vide letter dated 08/01/2018 to the assessee bank categorically calling for the workings

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed/partly

ITA 7269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7269/Mum/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls Finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaac0460H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-5(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Shri Hiten Chande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234C

ordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10. The Ld.AR further brought to our attention that the assessee raised a Miscellaneous Application with regard to the finding given by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the order 17.02.2021 and that the Hon'ble Tribunal passed the order

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5346/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

assessee is dismissed subject to removal of remarks by the Id. CIT(A) as observed hereinabove." 36. Subsequently, the assessee preferred a Miscellaneous Application against the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). Vide order dated 07/12/2020 passed in Central Bank of India V/s DCIT, in MA No. 153/Mum./2020 ... assessment year 2012-13, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and modified its order as follows:- "5. We find that the Id. CIT(A) had issued enhancement notice vide letter dated 08/01/2018 to the assessee bank categorically calling for the workings

Jt. CIT (OSD) -2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 3674/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

assessee is dismissed subject to removal of remarks by the Id. CIT(A) as observed hereinabove." 24. Subsequently, the assessee preferred a Miscellaneous Application against the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). Vide order dated 07/12/2020 passed in Central Bank of India V/s DCIT, in MA No. 153/Mum./2020 ... assessment year 2012-13, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and modified its order as follows: - "5. We find that the Id. CIT(A) had issued enhancement notice vide letter dated 08/01/2018 to the assessee bank categorically calling for the workings

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1223/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

assessee is dismissed subject to removal of remarks by the Id. CIT(A) as observed hereinabove." 24. Subsequently, the assessee preferred a Miscellaneous Application against the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). Vide order dated 07/12/2020 passed in Central Bank of India V/s DCIT, in MA No. 153/Mum./2020 ... assessment year 2012-13, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and modified its order as follows:- “5. We find that the Id. CIT(A) had issued enhancement notice vide letter dated 08/01/2018 to the assessee bank categorically calling for the workings

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1078/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

assessee is dismissed subject to removal of remarks by the Id. CIT(A) as observed hereinabove." 24. Subsequently, the assessee preferred a Miscellaneous Application against the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). Vide order dated 07/12/2020 passed in Central Bank of India V/s DCIT, in MA No. 153/Mum./2020 ... assessment year 2012-13, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and modified its order as follows: – “5. We find that the Id. CIT(A) had issued enhancement notice vide letter dated 08/01/2018 to the assessee bank categorically calling for the workings