How many judgments cite CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.?

2,267 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 147, Section 144, Section 142(1), Section 148, Section 143(3).

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1991#8 most cited

What is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. authority for?

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

2,267

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. · Rule 19(2) Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules · appeal dismissed non-prosecution · appeal unadmitted · appellant non-cooperation · lack of diligence · opportunity of being heard · section 250 · appellate procedure

Also reported as

223 ITR 840

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 147 Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 25 india opportunity of being heard section 250 nfac interest total income document

Judgments citing CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

Data Soft Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 751/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganeshi.T. A No. 751/Kol/2010 A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: None/Adj. Petition not filedFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Sinha, JCIT/Sr.DR

…behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. In view of the above, following the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P) Limited reported in 38 ITD 320(Del) and Hon’ble M.P High 1 ITA No. 751/Kol/2010-C-AM M.P- M/s. Data Soft Holdings Pvt.Ltd Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in (223 ITR 480(MP), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution. 3. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN O…

Dowell Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 750/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganeshi.T. A No. 750/Kol/2010 A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: None/Adj. Petition not filedFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Sinha, JCIT/Sr.DR

…behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. In view of the above, following the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P) Limited reported in 38 ITD 320(Del) and Hon’ble M.P High 1 ITA No. 750/Kol/2010-C-AM M.P- M/s. Dowell Fiscal Services Pvt.Ltd Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in (223 ITR 480(MP), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution. 3. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED…

M/S. Jacksons Departmental Store, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 509/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…ordingly in the absence of any representation or petition seeking time, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). 3. Before parting it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing; and the assessee is in a position to address the delay then the assessee if so advised would be at liberty to pra…

Cane Development Council (Titawi), Muzaffarnagar vs. CIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6434/DEL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2016

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…ordingly in the absence of any representation or petition seeking time, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). .T.A .No. 6434/Del/2013 Cane Development Council (Titawi) 3. Before parting it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing; and the assessee is in a position to address the del…

Sh. Bhupinder Singh Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1780/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. K.K. JAISWAL, DR

…cation for adjournment. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its appeals. 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. 1 CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. We may like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purp…

Sri Nikhilesh Sadhukhan, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 40(2), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 925/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

…any adjournment application on behalf of assessee though notice of hearing sent to assessee through RPAD. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (I) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.), Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukjirao Holkar Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana ITA No.925/Kol/2013 A.Y.2005-06 Sh. Niklhilesh Sadhukhan v. ITO Wd-40(2), Kol. Page 2 High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills Vs. CIT 296 ITR 495 (P & H) and the Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N.Bhatt…

L.Mohana Krishnan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 8

ITA 1011/CHNY/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Parashivaih, IRS, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…oduce details with evidences. On the said date of hearing, there was no appearance and response. The ld.CIT(A) found that assessee is not interested in pursuing the grounds of appeal and none appeared by applying ratio of Multiplan (India ) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 38 ITD 320 and Estate of Late Tukojirao Halkar vs. CWT 223 1TR 480 (MP) dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the assessee assailed an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the ld. Authorised Representative reiterated his 5. submissions made before the Commi…

M/S. Veg Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 408/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. R. SONBHADRA, Sr. D.R

…odied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as unadmitted. 4. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under: “if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation…

M/S Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Bagalkot vs. CIT, Belgaum

ITA 1142/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajashekar, Addl.CIT

…on behalf of the assessee, despite service of notice. Therefore, it appears that the assessee is not interested to pursue its appeal, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of CIT 2 ITA No.1142(B)15 Vs M/s Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., (38 ITD 320) the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 2nd February, 2016. (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: Bangalore Dated: 02-02-2016 am* Copy to : 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF (B’lore) By Order AR, ITAT, Bangalore…

M/S. Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 5305/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-5304/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

…. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute these appeals. 2. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Delhi)] and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], these appeals are treated as un-admitted and dismissed. 3. In result, both the appeals of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution. The order is pronounced in the open court on Ist of February, 2016. (J. SUDHA…

M/S. Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 5304/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-5304/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

Trust Bawa Goverdhan Dass Ji, New Delhi vs. DIT (E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 5714/DEL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2016

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : Na Trust Bawa Goverdhan Dass Ji, Vs. Dit(E), C/O Mr. K.S. Kohli, Fca, New Delhi. Wz-908-B, Ff (Cb Area) Near Cb-1, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi. Pan : Aactt2292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Shri Rajiv Ranka, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2016 Order Per R.S. Syal, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Director Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi, U/S 12Aa (1) (B) R.W.S. 12A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On 29.8.2013. Ita No.5714/Del/2013 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Ranka, Sr.DR

Section 12A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : NA Trust Bawa Goverdhan Dass Ji, Vs. DIT(E), C/o Mr. K.S. Kohli, FCA, New Delhi. WZ-908-B, FF (CB AREA) Near CB-1, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi. PAN : AACTT2292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri Rajiv Ranka, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28.01.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 28.01.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), New…

Shri Sarad Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-33(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 418/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jan 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

…s principle is embodied in the well known dictum - “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT –vs.- Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar –vs.- C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on January 27, 2016. (P.M.…

M/S New Kenilworth Hotel Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, Cir- 8, Kolkata.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 265/KOL/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2000-01

Section 143(3)

…petition, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. In view of the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. ITA No.265/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2000-01 M/s New Kenilworth Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT Cir-8, Kol. Page 2 Multiplan (I) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.), Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukjirao Holkar Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480, laying down proposition that a litigant has not only to file an appeal but has to prosecute the same diligently and on failure to do so the appeal can be dismissed for non prosecution, we dismiss the appeal of the Assessee in limine for want of prosecu…

Sh. Rajiv Nigam, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5689/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Aasish Mohanty, Sr. DR

Sh. Ajay Khanna, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2516/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shh R.S. Syal, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Aasish Mohanty, Sr. DR

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1165/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

…ssuing notice again and again to the assessees on the same address. Considering these facts and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of Multi Plan India which is reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and also in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss both the appeals in limine for non-prosecution. The assessees, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of the order and explaining the re…

Sh. Achal Raina, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

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

ITA 633/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. DR

…ied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were 2 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as unadmitted. 4. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under: “if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation…

Surinder Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4870/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble:Asstt. Yrs: 2011-12 Surinder Kumar Gupta, Vs. Dcit Central Circle-2, 45/6B, Mall Road, Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaehs 7458 G ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Amrit Lal Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2015. Date Of Order : 12/01/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M..: This Appeal, By The Assessee , Has Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 10- 06-2015, Passed By The Cit(A)-I, New Delhi, In Appeal No. 319/14-15, Relating To A.Y. 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Hearing None Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Personal Knowledge Of The Date Of Hearing As Is Apparent From The Order Sheet Dated 09.11.2015, When The Hearing Was Adjourned At The Request Of Assessee’S Counsel To 11.12.2015 & Both The Parties Were Intimated Of The Date Fixed In The Open Court. This Time The Assessee Has Not Cared Even To Apply For Adjournment. It Gives An Impression That The Assessee Is Not Serious In Pursuing The Present Appeal Filed. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), The Assessee’S Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution. 3. The Hon'Ble Madhya Pradesh High Court In The Case Of Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt (223 Itr 480) Has Held As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal

…at the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal filed. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the pa…

Prakash Shankarappa Pattanashetti, Bagalkot vs. ITO, Bagalkot

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1059/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 144

…but none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any written submissions were filed. The CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee is not serious in contesting the appeals. Therefore applying the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT (223 ITR 480), the CIT(A) held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed in limine. Page 3 of 6 4. Even on the merits of the case, the CIT(A) observed that the additions made by the A.O are on strong footings with reasoning. He further obser…