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 367,181 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 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.

Sri Nehru Bazaar Sweatamber Murti Pukaj Jain Sangh Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 12(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1348/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1348/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sri Nehru Bazaar Swetamber Murti Vs The Income Tax Officer, Pukaj Jain Sangh Trust, Non-Corporate Ward-12(1) 242 A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 010. Pan: Aaits 6772K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 20.09.2021

Section 143Section 144Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद%य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1348/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sri Nehru Bazaar Swetamber Murti Vs The Income Tax Officer, Pukaj Jain Sangh Trust, Non-Corporate Ward-12(1) 242 A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 010. PAN: AAITS 6772K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : None अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CIT ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Responde…

Ajay Dynanoba Tingre, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

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

ITA 536/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer AtalFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…te order and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limine placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India & Ors., Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 dt. 17.09.2009 (Bom.); (ii) CIT vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); (iii) CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 (SC). 4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine for…

Rakesh Divedi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 40(3), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1960/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

…hat the assessee is not interested in effectively pursuing the appeals filed and guided by the principle as set out by the Apex Court in CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya [1997] 118 ITR 461(SC) and Delhi Tribunal in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) dismissed the appeals of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by this assessee is in appeal before the ITAT on various grounds. Apart from the lack of opportunity etc. the assessee has also challenged the assumptions of jurisdiction which was a ground raised before the CIT(A) also as Ground Nos. 2 to 7. These have remained undecided. Page 2 of 4…

Rakesh Divedi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 40(3), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1959/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Apna Ghar Unit No. 4 Chs Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8044/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Manish Borad () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Apna Ghar Unit No. 4 Chs Ltd., Income Tax Officer-15(1)(1), Ground Floor, Girnar Samarth Vs. Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Nagar, Andheri (West), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 8578 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, DR

Section 144

…lso observe that when the assessee filed the appeal before the First Appellate Authority raising various grounds on merit, none was dealt on merit and Ld. CIT(A) passed the order applying judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the Multiplan India P. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (1991) (Delhi). 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was originally granted the PAN in the status of the company i.e. AAACA 8578 Q but since the assessee is association of person, new PAN was allotted i.e. AADAA 9738 R and the income earned by the assessee from rent and interest income were duly disclosed in t…

Ajai Kumar Gupta, Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad

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

ITA 251/ALLD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 Ajai Kumar Gupta, V. Assistant Commissioner Of 251, Chak, Zero Road, Income Tax, Circle-I, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Abxpg3115C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.08.2021

For Appellant: Mr. S.K. Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

…ecuting the appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachaargee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it. Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Hokar vs. CWT. 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed in the limine. Similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble ITAT, Allahabad in the case of Jan Suchna Trust vs. CIT (in ITA No. 491/ALLD/2012 for A.Y. 2011/12) and also in many other cases, that The…

Gda Finvest & Trade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Sh.Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2005-06 Gda Finvest & Trade Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Delhi Rohtak Road, Assam Circle-10(1), Timber Market, Swarna Park, New Delhi. Mundka, New Delhi. Pan-Aaacg4200D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2021

Section 271(1)(c)

…rvice of notices therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Assessment Year : 2005-06 Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.). We hereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 03rd August, 2021. (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar*…

Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- II, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3809/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Sh.Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2012-13 Isolux Corsan India Vs Dcit, Engineering & Construction Circle-Ii, Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Splendor Gurgaon. Trade Tower, Sector-65, Golf Course Extension Road, Haryana, Gurgaon-122018. Pan-Aabci9232Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2021

Section 133(6)

…of the assessee despite service of notices therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.). We hereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 03rd August, 2021. (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Assessment Year : 2012-13…

Harsh Kumar Singh Bhadoriya, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 8179/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Harsh Kumar Singh Bhadoriya, Vs. Ito, H. No.2, Anukampa Apartment, Ward-1(3), Abhay Khand 4, Ghaziabad. Indrapuram, Ghaziabad (Up). Pan: Carpb9788B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohan Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestra, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…ITR 461 (SC); the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.); and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 2 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case. The ld. DR, on the other hand, hea…

Girdhar Bajaj, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 298/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2014-15 Girdhar Bajaj, Vs Ito, 7331/1, Khari Baoli, Ward-47(2), Delhi-110006. New Delhi. Pan-Aaipb3187H Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2021

Section 68

…of the assessee despite service of notices therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.). I hereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 29th July, 2021. (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar*…

Abdul Nasir, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8630/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Abdul Nasir, Vs Ito, 7900, Gali Haji Mehboob Wali, Ward-63(2), Mohalla Shaikhan, New Delhi. Sadar Bazar (Nai Basti, Bara Hindu Rao), Delhi. Pan: Abxpn8345B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 30Th August, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-20, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice Through Rpad. Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.18,22,800/- Made By The Ao To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…ITR 461 (SC); the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.); and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 2 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the notice issued u/s 148/142(1), the AO completed th…

Unitech Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4270/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Unitech Holdings Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Luthra & Luthra Law Cricle-27(1), Ofices, 103, Ashoka Estate, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacu0237C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh.H.K.Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2021

Section 14ASection 250(6)

…of the assessee despite service of notices therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.). We hereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 28th July, 2021. (DR.B.R.R.KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Assessment Year : 2012-13…

Gaura Education Socity, Dhar vs. ITO Exemption, Indore

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

ITA 139/IND/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Virtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17 Gaura Educational Society ITO-(Exemption) Dhar Indore बनाम/Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAAAG7829E Appellant by Shri Arpit Gaur, AR Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Indore, dated 18.11.2019. The sum a…

M/S Skygo Polymers P Ltd., Indore vs. ITO 2(1), Indore

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

ITA 125/IND/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S Skygo Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Ito-2(1) (Formerly Known As Gorgeous बनाम/Vs. Indore Securities Ltd. Ltd. ) Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaccg9124A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Virtual Hearing Assessment Year:2010-11 M/s Skygo Polymers Pvt. Ltd. ITO-2(1) (formerly Known as Gorgeous बनाम/Vs. Indore Securities Ltd. Ltd. ) Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AACCG9124A Appellant by Shri Arpit Gaur, AR Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of l…

M/S Y.D. Solutions, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-4(5), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 852/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 24

…factual background as addressed may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed as the assessee despite issuance of notices has remained unrepresented. Support is from the order of the ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Shri Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs Wealth Tax Commissioner 223 ITR 480 (MP) etc. 10. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in the eventuality the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty to pr…

Sh. Noren Mandal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2550/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R.C

…d to send the notice again and again on the same address. 3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 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. 4. 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…

M/S Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commmissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 847/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. The law aids those who are vigilant and not those who sleep upon/over their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum Vigilantibus non Dormantibus Jura sub Veniunt which has been followed in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, the grounds of appeal should have been dismissed for want of prosecution. However, for the advancement of substantial cause of justice Page 8 of 11 and equity, the grounds raised by the appellant were decided on merits based on the material available on record. 11. Therefore, the CIT(A) passed ex parte…

M/S Regal Shipping and Marine Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3981/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 3981/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) M/S Regal Shipping & Marine The Dcit Services Pvt. Ltd. Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai 711, 7Th Floor, Vidyan Commercial फनाभ/ Premises, Sector-11, Plot No.1, Cbd Belapur, Navi Vs. Mumbai-400 614 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaccr8006Q अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Vidhyadhar V, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-24, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Ita No. Cit(A)-24/Dcit-15(3)(1)/It-264/2015-16 Dated 20.03.2017. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai (In Short Dcit/ Ao), For The A.Y. 2012-13 Vide M/S Regal Shipping & Marine Services P. Ltd.; Ay 12-13 Order Dated 27.03.2015 Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar V, DR

Section 144

…) that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appellate order without dealing the issue on merits. The CIT(A) has just relied on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of M/s Regal Shipping & Marine Services P. Ltd.; AY 12-13 CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and dismissed the appeal. 4. When we noticed this, it seems that there is no adjudication on merits and once, there is no adjudication on merits, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has to decide this appeal and not to dismiss it for default on the part of the assessee or the learned counsel for the assessee does not appear. In other words,…

M/S. Dasmesh Airconditioning Engineers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5353/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5353/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2015-16) M/S Dasmesh Airconditioning The Asst. Commisioner Of Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Plot No. 24, Sector 19E, Near Rto Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai फनाभ/ Office, Opp Annapurna Mahila Mandal, Vashi, Navi Vs. Mumbai-400 705, Maharashtra (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaccd4063B आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5352/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2015-16) M/S Dasmesh Aerofrost Infra Pvt. The Asst. Commisioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Plot No. 24, Sector 19E, Near Rto Circle-15(2), Mumbai फनाभ/ Office, Opp Annapurna Mahila Mandal, Vashi, Navi Vs. Mumbai-400 705, Maharashtra (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aadcd3308G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Saini Harjinder Singh, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Vidhyadhar V, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Saini Harjinder Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar V, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

…t. Ltd..; AY 15-16 5. At the outset, it is noticed from the order of CIT(A) that there is no adjudication by CIT(A) on merits and dismissing the appeal by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). When we noticed this, it seems that there is adjudication on merits and once, there is no adjudication on merits, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has to decide this appeal on merits and not to dismiss it for default on the part of the assessee does not appear. In other words, the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for def…

Brahma Beverages (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9192/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…(i) Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 38 taxman.com 204 (P&H); (ii) CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharya (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC); (iii) Vipul Lgistic & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, ITA No. 5454/Del/10 - ITAT, Delhi; and (iv) CIT vs Multiplan (India) (P) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (ITAT - Del), 2 4. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find, the AO, in the instant case, completed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.12,95,364/- as against the returned loss of Rs.25,04,636/- on the ground that the…