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 367,368 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 Radic Khaitan Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4355/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2005-06]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 245Section 245D(4)

…in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission, (1989) 176 ITR169 Jyotendrasinghji v. S.I. Tripathi & Ors., (1993) 201 ITR 611 Shriyans Prasad Jain v. Income- tax Officer and others, (1993) 204 ITR 616 and Kuldeep Industrial corporation v. ITO, (1997) 223 ITR 840 are equally conclusive about the plenitude of powers conferred upon the Settlement Commission. 16. It is evident from the rulings of the Supreme Court that orders of Settlement Commission are final and conclusive as to matters stated therein. The "matters" necessarily could comprehend disputed questions, items or heads of income, disallowance, et…

M/S Rachna Enterprises, Narsinghpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Narsinghpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 219/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 M/S Rachna Enterprises V. Income Tax Officer Kandeli Narsinghpur Narsinghpur Tan/Pan:Aaffr2406J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri P. D. Choughale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur, Dated 28/8/2018, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 3/4/2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. On Perusal Of Record, It Is Noticed That The Notice Of Hearing Was Duly Served On The Assessee, As It Was Issued Through Rpad. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear On The Date Fixed For Hearing, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non- Prosecution. In This Regard, We Place Reliance Upon The Following Case Laws:- 1. Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 Itd 320 (Del) 2. Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt, 223 Itr 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills Vs. Cit (2008), 296 Itr 495 (P& H)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Choughale, D.R

…aring, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such, we hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008), 296 ITR 495 (P& H) ITA No.219/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 2 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prose…

Rfiq Bhai, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-Seoni, Seoni

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 154/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2009-10 Rafiq Bhai V. Income Tax Officer Ward No.7 Ward Mominpura, Barghat Seoni Seoni Tan/Pan:Ajtpb3919P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur, Dated 24/4/2018, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 3/4/2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. On Perusal Of Record, It Is Noticed That The Notice Of Hearing Was Duly Served On The Assessee, As It Was Issued Through Rpad. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear On The Date Fixed For Hearing, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non- Prosecution. In This Regard, We Place Reliance Upon The Following Case Laws:- 1. Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 Itd 320 (Del) 2. Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt, 223 Itr 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills Vs. Cit (2008), 296 Itr 495 (P& H)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R

…aring, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such, we hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008), 296 ITR 495 (P& H) ITA No.154/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 2 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non- pros…

Shri Vasudeo Khatri, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-Seoni, Seoni

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 153/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Vasudeo Khatri V. Income Tax Officer Nirmal Colony Ward, Seoni Barapathar, Seoni Tan/Pan:Ahppk7583A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per T. S. Kapoor, A.M.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur, Dated 24/4/2018, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 2/4/2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear On The Date Fixed For Hearing, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution. In This Regard, We Place Reliance Upon The Following Case Laws:- 1. Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 Itd 320 (Del) 2. Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt, 223 Itr 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills Vs. Cit (2008), 296 Itr 495 (P& H) 4. Cit Vs. B. N. Bhattachargee & Another, 118 Itr 461(Sc)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R

…earing, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such, we hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008), 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) ITA No.153/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 2 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prose…

Shri Rameshwar Sarle, Betul vs. Income Tax Officer, Betul

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 148/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Rameshwar Sarle V. Income Tax Officer At Post Badodra, Betul Betul Tan/Pan:Bzips2120M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per T.S. Kapoor, A.M.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Bhopal, Dated 15/5/2018, For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 2/4/2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear On The Date Fixed For Hearing, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution. In This Regard, We Place Reliance Upon The Following Case Laws:- 1. Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 Itd 320 (Del) 2. Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt, 223 Itr 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills Vs. Cit (2008), 296 Itr 495 (P& H) 4. Cit Vs. B. N. Bhattachargee & Another, 118 Itr 461(Sc)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R

…earing, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such, we hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008), 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) ITA No.148/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 2 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prose…

Spring Enterprise Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1570/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Sh. A.L.Sainivs Spring Enterprise Pvt.Ltd., Ito, 5A, Bhim Ghose Lane, Ground Floor, Ward-7(3), Kolkata. Kolkata-700006. Pan-Aascs0218D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Radhey Shyam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03.04.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Passed By Cit(A)-18, Kolkata For Ay 2012-13. No One Was Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. A.L.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vs Spring Enterprise Pvt.Ltd., ITO, 5A, Bhim Ghose Lane, Ground Floor, Ward-7(3), Kolkata. Kolkata-700006. PAN-AASCS0218D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Radhey Shyam, CIT DR Date of Hearing 03.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 03.04.2019 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by CIT(A)-18, Kolkata for AY 2012-13. No one was appeared on behalf of the assessee. 2.…

Shivdhan Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1569/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shivdhan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-9(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR

Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Shivdhan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata 51, Nalini Seth Road, 5th Floor, Kolkata- 700007. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAQCS 5551 D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 03/04/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 03/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed agai…

Minnat Merchandise Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1568/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Sh. A.L.Sainivs Minnat Merchandise Pvt.Ltd., Ito, 5A, Bhim Ghose Lane, Ground Floor, Ward-7(1), Kolkata. Kolkata-700006. Pan-Aaicm1354N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Radhey Shyam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03.04.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2018 Passed By Cit(A)-18, Kolkata For Ay 2012-13. No One Was Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. A.L.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vs Minnat Merchandise Pvt.Ltd., ITO, 5A, Bhim Ghose Lane, Ground Floor, Ward-7(1), Kolkata. Kolkata-700006. PAN-AAICM1354N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Radhey Shyam, CIT DR Date of Hearing 03.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 03.04.2019 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15.03.2018 passed by CIT(A)-18, Kolkata for AY 2012-13. No one was appeared on behalf of the assessee. 2.…

Onrise Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 13(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 883/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am,] I.T.A No.883/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Onrise Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- Ito, Ward-13(3), Kolkata [Pan : Aabco 8060 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T. Varkey, JM & Sri M. Balaganesh, AM,] I.T.A No.883/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Onrise Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- ITO, Ward-13(3), Kolkata [PAN : AABCO 8060 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 ORDER Per A.T. Varkey, JM This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata [in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No.242/CIT(A)- 5/Wd-13(3)/15-16 da…

M/S. Chirag Vyappar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 880/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am,] I.T.A No.880/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Chirag Vyappar Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- Ito, Ward-3(2), Kolkata [Pan :Aadcc 4060 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T. Varkey, JM & Sri M. Balaganesh, AM,] I.T.A No.880/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Chirag Vyappar Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- ITO, Ward-3(2), Kolkata [PAN :AADCC 4060 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 ORDER Per A.T. Varkey, JM This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata [in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No.10170/CIT(A)-12/Ward-…

M/S Bluerose Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 849/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am,] I.T.A No.849/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bluerose Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- Ito, Ward-9(2), Kolkata [Pan :Aaecb 5952 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T. Varkey, JM & Sri M. Balaganesh, AM,] I.T.A No.849/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Bluerose Sales Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata [PAN :AAECB 5952 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata [in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No.757/CIT(A)-16/Kol/2015-16…

M/S Neobyte Software Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3281/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Neobyte Software Solutions Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Complex, 80 Feet Circle - 5(1)(1), Road, Koramangala, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 078. Pan : Aaccn 5027 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…4, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-5, Bangalore. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide the impugned order dated 13.03.2018 for non-prosecution following the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (ITAT-Delhi). 3. The assessee, being aggrieved by the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)-5, Bangalore, dated 13.03.2018 has preferred this appeal wherein it has raised the following grounds: Page 3 of 8 Page 4 of 8 Page 5 of 8 4. Ground Nos. 1,2, 4 and 5 4.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee contends that the impugned ex-parte order of the CIT(A…