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 366,470 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.

M/S Saptarshi International, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward518(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 16/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Debasish Lahiri, JCIT, Sr.DR

…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. 5. 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…

D.Dinesh Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 1569/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT

Section 68

…essing Officer, the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions including that of jurisdictional High Court and applied the ratio in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del.) and adjudicated on merits ex parte. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, raising similar grounds and also alleging that there was no proper justification in dismissing the appeal by the CIT(Appeals). 5. Before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted…

Sri. S. Gopala Krishna Chetty, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 723/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.723/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri. S. Gopala Krishna Chetty, 405, 7Th Main, Ii Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore .. Appellant Pan : Aalpc3165F V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mallah Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. P. Dhivahar, Jcit Heard On : 31.08.2015 Pronounced On : 04.09.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Mallah Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Dhivahar, JCIT

…ITA.723/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.723/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri. S. Gopala Krishna Chetty, 405, 7th Main, II Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore .. Appellant PAN : AALPC3165F v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -2(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Mallah Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. P. Dhivahar, JCIT Heard on : 31.08.2015 Pronounced on : 04.09.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This…

Smt. Archana Anand Kumar, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 841/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, Addl. CIT (D.R)

…EXPORT TURNOVER NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT”. Considering the facts and circumstances 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), we dismiss these appeals for non- prosecution. 3. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.08.2015. (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member *Reddy gp Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard File. () By Order…

Venkat Rao Immani, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1152/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1152/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. B.S. Purshotham, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…09. 2 I.T.A. No.1152/Mds/15 2. Sh. B.S. Purshotham, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by following the order of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320. According to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have disposed the appeal on merit instead of dismissing the same for non- prosecution. Therefore, the Ld. representative submitted that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to present all the facts before the CIT(Appeals) so as to enable him to dispose the same on merit.…

J.Prabhu, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 3020/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3020/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri J. Prabhu, The Income Tax Officer, No.14/83, Phase-Iii, V. Business Ward Xiv(3), Thiru Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 049. Pan : Amxpp 7624 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. M. Karuppiah, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

Section 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, एस एम सी "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL S M C BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3020/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri J. Prabhu, The Income Tax Officer, No.14/83, Phase-III, v. Business Ward XIV(3), Thiru Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 049. PAN : AMXPP 7624 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh. M. Karuppiah, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 03.07.…

Intuit Technology Services P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IV, Bangalore

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

ITA 1665/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I(DR)

…d. Thus, it appears that the assessee is not keen in prosecuting the appeal. 3. 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. 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…

Kochi Propety Developers P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 612/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT

…was present on the date of hearing. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. We dismiss the appeals 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. 03. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 3rd August, 2015. (N. V. VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN* Copy to: 1. The assessee 2. The Ass…

M.K.Kotirathnam, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 996/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.996/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nishal, JCIT

…l submissions on either side and 5. also perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by placing his reliance on the decision of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320. We have gone through the decision of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd (supra). The ITA No.996/15 :- 3 -: Tribunal found that there was a defect in the appeal and the assessee has not rectified the defect, therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not admitted. In the case before us, it is nobody’s case that the appe…