<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (11) TMI 1354 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460886</link>
    <description>A miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act was held time-barred because it was filed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal&#039;s order was passed, and even reckoning the period from the date of receipt of the order, it remained out of time. The Tribunal also noted that it had no jurisdiction to condone delay in a section 254(2) miscellaneous application, so the request for rectification or recall was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:32:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=802313" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 1354 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460886</link>
      <description>A miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act was held time-barred because it was filed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal&#039;s order was passed, and even reckoning the period from the date of receipt of the order, it remained out of time. The Tribunal also noted that it had no jurisdiction to condone delay in a section 254(2) miscellaneous application, so the request for rectification or recall was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>