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 367,181 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 250Section 147Section 144Section 142(1)Section 148Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 25indiaopportunity of being heardsection 250nfacinteresttotal incomedocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

Shweta Infrastructure & Housing (I) Pvt. Ltd., Nashik vs. DCIT, Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3851/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shweta Infrastructure & Housing Dy. Cit, Circle 13(2)(2), (I) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Samraat Head Quarters, A33, 7Th Marine Lines, Lane, Satpur Midc Road, Nice Mumbai-400020. Area, Nashik-422007. Pan No. Aajcs 4306 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2024

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 220(6)Section 246A

…ities have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Likewise, in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) prosecution. Likewise, in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) prosecution. Likewise, in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del) the Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del) the appeal filed by the appellant was y the appellant was dismissed for non dismissed for non-attendance.” 4.1 In our opinion, In our opinion, as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’)…

Sri Vijay Mining Works, Shaikpet, Tolichowki vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 139/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad03 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR appeared for Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

…ng them in the communication window that was opened by the NFAC. Having observed that since the assessee failed to avail the same, he had no option to proceed ex parte, the learned CIT(A) while placing reliance on the decisions of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), Estate of Late Tukojirao Hokar vs. CWT 223 ITR 840 (M.P) and CIT vs. B.N.Bhattachargee and another 118 ITR 461 (SC), dismissed the appeal. 6. Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decis…

Guddu Kanwar, Rajasthan, Sikar vs. ITO Ward 3, Sikar, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(4)Section 68

…hich the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of prosecution of appeal has stated that- "Preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it". 4.2 The Delhi Tribunal in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) when faced with a similar situation of non- prosecution of appeal, dismissed the appeal of revenue. 4.3 Reliance is also placed in the case of Vipul Logistic & Warehousing (P) Ltd Vs. ITO, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT has confirmed even the order of CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the taxpayer when there was no response to the notices…

Maniveera Structure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 323/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian. S, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 37

…pursuing the appeal. Ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol V/s. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 and in the case of CIT V/s. Multiplan India(P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del). 3 M/s. Maniveera Structure Pvt. Ltd. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us. The Assessee before us submitted that the notices sent by the ld. Commissioner somehow went to the group e-mail which resulted in non-compliance. We observe that in the Form No.35 as well as in Form No.36, the Assessee has given the e-mail address…

Arunachalam Sivakumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1416/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 15-12-2019. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the first appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution by applying the decision in CIT Vs. M/s. Multi Plan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 and there is no adjudication on merit. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity of 2 hearing before lower authorities to substantiate its case. The Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to para 1.1 of the impugned order and submitted that as many as six notices were sent to assessee which were not complied with by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A)…

Suryakant Baburao Swami, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

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

ITA 844/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Suryakant Baburao Swami, Ito, Ward-1(5), Behind Jhulelal Temple Naryan Income Tax Bhavan, Near Nagar, Latur-413-512. Vs. Railway Station, Gandhi Chowk, Nanded Road, Latur-431512 Pan No. Bynps 1468 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Kalpesh Rupavatiya (Through
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69

…f 2009 dated 17-09-2010 held that in cases where assesse do not want to pursue the appeal, the court/tribunal had inherent power ot dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Similar view has also been taken in the case of CIT .v Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). Following the ratio of Multiplan (India) Ltd (supra), the Chennai Tribunal has also dismissed appeal for non- prosecution ni the case of M/s Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd v ITO ni ITA No. 134/Mds/2011 dated 5.7.2011 for A.Y.2006-07. Further, the Hon'ble MP High Court ni Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar .v CIT, 223 ITR 480(MP…

Manickam Jewellery, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Nc Ward 22(3), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1537/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1537/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manickam Jewellery, Income Tax Officer, No. 85/1, Big Chetty Street, V. Ward -22(3), Chengalpattu – 603 001. Tambaram. [Pan: Aadfm-4953-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 69

…has sought adjournment to file details. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution, in light of decision of ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of CIT vs :-3-: ITA. No: 1537/Chny/2023 Multiplan India Pvt Ltd reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del). Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appeal filed by the assessee without considering adjournment petition filed by the assessee, seeking time to file necessary details, in violation of principles of natural justice…

Star Valley Heights LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 806/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 250

…unities were provided. Under these circumstances, I have no other alternative but to upheld the order the AO and dismiss the appeal following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Limited reported in 38 ITD 320 and also the decision of the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in 233 ITR 480. The law assists only those who are vigilant with their rights and not those who sleep over their rights. Following this principle as embodied in the well known dictum 6 STAR VALLEY HEIGHTS LLP VS ITO, WARD 3(2), JA…

Badri Narayan Madholal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 790/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

…Oil Mills vs. CIT [(2008) 296 ITR 495] returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of CIT V. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd, 38 ITD 320 Del). Under similar circumstances, following the ratio of Multiplan (India) Ltd (supra), the jurisdictional Chennai Tribunal has also dismissed appeal for non-prosecution in the case of M/s. Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd Vs. ITO in ITA No. 134/Mds/2011 dated 5th July, 2011 for A.Y.2006-07. - 5.3 There is no reason why the ratio o…

Covai Sri Vishali Jewellers, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward -1(4), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1298/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1298/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Covai Sri Vishali Jewellers, Income Tax Officer 598-B, Big Bazaar Street, V. Non Corporate Ward -1(4), Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagfc-1063-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Suraj Nahar, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2024

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए ’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI जि"टस "ी चं"कांत वसंत भडंग, अ"य" एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE Mr.JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1298/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Covai Sri Vishali Jewellers, Income Tax Officer 598-B, Big Bazaar Street, v. Non Corporate Ward -1(4), Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [PAN: AAGFC-1063-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Suraj Nahar, CA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से/Responden…

Green Bio Tech, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 529/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Green Bio Tech Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15(1) Pan:Aaifg4254G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate T. Chaitanya Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Ex-Parte Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.22,78,444/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 270A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Advocate T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 40A(3)

…enalty of Rs.22,78,444/- u/s 270A of the Act. We find due to non- appearance before the learned CIT (A) NFAC despite three opportunities granted, the learned CIT (A) NFAC, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd (381 ITD 320), the decision of the Hon'ble M.P High Court in the case Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya (118 ITR 461) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. From the perusal of the order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC we find learned CIT (A) NFAC had issued notice…

M/S Tayana Consult Pvt Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/219/2022HC Karnataka05 Jan 2024

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 260

…rder, it is indicated that: “Even the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. We dismiss the appeal following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT V. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar V. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, as the appeal is infructuous for non-prosecution”. 6. In view of the said status of the impugned order rendered by the Tribunal, it is deemed appropriate that this appeal be dismissed as having become infructuous. Accordingly, th…

Shree Shirkal Builders & Developers, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES

ITA 219/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Parth Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 214 To 219/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Adv. KP Devani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Kailash Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

…॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, नागपुर न्यायपीठ, नागपुर में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTH SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing from Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No. 214 to 219/NAG/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2016-17 Shree Shirkai Builders & Developers 1/20, New Subhedar Layout, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur. PAN: ABVFS2518R . . . . . . .अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearance…

Shree Shirkal Builders & Developers, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES

ITA 218/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Parth Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 214 To 219/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Adv. KP Devani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Kailash Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

…॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, नागपुर न्यायपीठ, नागपुर में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTH SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing from Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No. 214 to 219/NAG/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2016-17 Shree Shirkai Builders & Developers 1/20, New Subhedar Layout, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur. PAN: ABVFS2518R . . . . . . .अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearance…

Shree Shirkal Builders & Developers, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES

ITA 217/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Parth Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 214 To 219/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Adv. KP Devani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Kailash Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

…॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, नागपुर न्यायपीठ, नागपुर में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTH SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing from Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No. 214 to 219/NAG/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2016-17 Shree Shirkai Builders & Developers 1/20, New Subhedar Layout, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur. PAN: ABVFS2518R . . . . . . .अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearance…

Shree Shirkal Builders & Developers, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES

ITA 216/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Parth Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 214 To 219/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Adv. KP Devani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Kailash Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

…॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, नागपुर न्यायपीठ, नागपुर में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTH SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing from Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No. 214 to 219/NAG/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2016-17 Shree Shirkai Builders & Developers 1/20, New Subhedar Layout, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur. PAN: ABVFS2518R . . . . . . .अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearance…

Shree Shirkal Builders & Developers, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES

ITA 215/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Parth Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 214 To 219/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Adv. KP Devani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Kailash Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

…॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, नागपुर न्यायपीठ, नागपुर में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTH SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing from Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No. 214 to 219/NAG/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2016-17 Shree Shirkai Builders & Developers 1/20, New Subhedar Layout, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur. PAN: ABVFS2518R . . . . . . .अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearance…

Shree Shirkal Builders & Developers, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSES

ITA 214/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Parth Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 214 To 219/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 To 2016-17

For Appellant: Adv. KP Devani [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Kailash Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

…॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, नागपुर न्यायपीठ, नागपुर में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTH SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing from Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No. 214 to 219/NAG/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13 to 2016-17 Shree Shirkai Builders & Developers 1/20, New Subhedar Layout, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur. PAN: ABVFS2518R . . . . . . .अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearance…

Venkhata Srinivasa Infracon Private Limited, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 518/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(C)

…the learned CIT (A) in the ex-parte order passed by him dismissed the appeal by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar V. CIT (223 ITR 480 (MP) and in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd (38 ITD 320 (Del.). He also dismissed the appeal on merit by upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer in absence of any material or evidence to rebut the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The order of the Learne…

Venkhata Srinivasa Infracon Private Limited, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(C)

…the learned CIT (A) in the ex-parte order passed by him dismissed the appeal by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar V. CIT (223 ITR 480 (MP) and in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd (38 ITD 320 (Del.). He also dismissed the appeal on merit by upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer in absence of any material or evidence to rebut the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: “1. The order of the Learne…