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.

Triveni Motors, Agra vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 3047/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.:- 3047/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Triveni Motors DCIT 13, Ajmer Road, Central Circle -28 Vs. Baluganj New Delhi. Agra 282007 PAN AACFT0256B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Shri Surender Pal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 21/02/2019 Date of 28/02/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)29, New Delhi vide order dated 18.03.2016 pertaining to assessment…

Shri Devinder Pal, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Moga

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

ITA 762/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 762/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…is principle is embodied in the well known dictum “VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT’. The principle has been invoked in many a decision, as: Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 (MP); CIT v. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismissing the appeals in limine for want of prosecution. Reference here may also be drawn to the decision in CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee [1979] 118 ITR 461 (SC), wherein it stands clarified that preferring an appeal does not mean merely filing the appeal papers, but effectively pursuing it. The Apex Court as per its recent larger bench decis…

M/S. Jay Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 201/RJT/2012[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 201/Rjt/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S.Jay Enterprise The Cit(A)-Iv बनाम/ Mina Gali Rajkot Vs. Soni Bazar Mandvi Chowk Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfj6355K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : None (Adjournment Application) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pravenn Verma, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)For Respondent: Shri Pravenn Verma, Sr.DR

…Since this recent judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court has come, therefore, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee on account of non- prosecution. 6. 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.). M/s. Jay Enterprise vs. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot Asst.Year - 2008-09 7. Before parting, it would be appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there existed a reasonable cause for non- representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty, if so advised…

Rajendra Management Group, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 2043/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

…ITA.No.2043/Del./2018 Rajendra Management Group, New Delhi. 3. In view of the above and 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 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but…

M/S Prateek Resorts and Builders P.Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 2159/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Prateek Resorts & Builders [P] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. K – 19, Sector 19 Central Circle Noida Noida Pan: Aahfp 4669 F [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT- DR

…ion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed. We, therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeal preferred by the assessee, placing reliance on the ratio of decisions in the following cases:- 1. CIT Vs Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del); 2. Late Tukoji Rao Holkar vs CWT (1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP) 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 2159/DEL/2016 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2019. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date: 27th February, 2019 VL/ 3…

Systra Sa (Project Office), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 139/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: FixedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07 Systra Sa (Project Office), Vs Dy. Commr. Of Income-Tax 5Th Floor, Guru Angad Bhavan, International Taxation, 71, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Circle-2(2), New Delhi. Pan: Aagcs0354L

…entering appearance in person and submits their difficulties. We are left with no option but to hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. 3. We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del) wherein there was no representation for the appellant in the appeal filed by him before the Tribunal, on the date of hearing, nor any communication for adjournment was received as to why the appellant had chosen to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted i…

Bhim Pal Dagar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 4705/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

…al of the assessee is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. 3. In view of the above and 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 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but…

M/S. Priya Tissue Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5205/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Priya Tissue Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 13/34, Wea Karol Bagh, Ward-14(4), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccp7231P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

…e reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this court is not bound to answer the reference. (iii). In the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (del). The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was fixed for hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue / applicant, nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent pow…

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 1706/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…ed. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute this appeal. 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)], this appeal is treated as un-admitted and dismissed. 2 3. In result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26th FEBRUARY , 2019. (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIA…

Sri.Raveendran Gurunathan, Kottayam vs. The ITO(TDS), Kottayam

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

ITA 507/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

…the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)] and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.507/Coch/2018. 2 Sri.Raveendran Gurunathan. CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320]. However, if the assessee so desires, shall be free to move an application to this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order, after explaining reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Tribunal on the date of hearing. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 25th day of February, 2019. (Ch…

U.P. Arthroplasty Society, Kanpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 261/LKW/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 U.P. Arthroplasty Society V. Cit (Exemption) 59/60, 1St Floor, Birhana Road Lucknow Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaaau3390A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Dated 8/2/2018 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Act. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 12.2.2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. We Find That The Notice Of Hearing Had Been Sent Through Rpad To The Assessee, The Acknowledgement Of Which Has Been Received Back Showing Receipt Of Notice By The Assessee On 10/1/2019. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear Despite Having Knowledge Of The Date Of 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:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)

Section 12A

…ee 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:- ITA No.261/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 2 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) 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The assessee may, however,…

Arvinder Pal Singh, Kharar vs. CIT II, Chandigarh

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

ITA 256/CHANDI/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 256/Chd/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Arvinder Pal Singh, The Cit –Ii, बनाम Wine Contractor, Chandigarh #79, Ward 3, Kharar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Belps9829F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dhaiya, CIT DR

…BUS 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 ITA No. 256/Chd/2015- Sh. Arvinder Pal Singh, Kharar 2 in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as unadmitted. 3. 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 prepa…

Shri.Poovaiah C K, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1407/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri C.K. Poovaiah No.1671, 27Th Main, 2Nd Sector, Hsr Layout, Bengaluru-560 102. … Appellant Pan:Aaxpk 8742 L Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri T.V.Subramanya Bhat, Ca. Respondent By : Dr. K.R.Subhash, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T.V.Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Dr. K.R.Subhash, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68Section 69

…tained requesting an adjournment for the personal hearing to 28/02/2018. The case was not a time barring one and there was no urgency or haste to complete the order quoting the case of Honourable Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Limited reported in 38 ITD 320 is against the law, equity and natural justice and as a result bad in law. 2. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), Bengaluru has wrongly estimated the net rental income of Rs. 5,25,000/- for House No. 1671, 2nd Sector, 27th main, HSR Layout, Bengaluru 560102 even though the house in question was being constructed during the financial year…

Shri Narmada Architectural Systems Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for 4

ITA 751/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Surat20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meena

…Shri Narmada Architectural Systems Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch/ITA No.751/AHD/2017/A.Y.2010-11 Page 1 of 3 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.751/Ahd/2017/SRT Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Appellant) (Revenue ) बना Shri Narmada Architectural The Assistant Systems Ltd., Commissioner of म/ 95/01, Opp.Apnaghar Society, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs. Bholav, Bharuch – 392 001. Circle, Bharuch. P.A.N: AAGCS 6258 P Appellant by None. Respondent by Shri B.P.K.Panda – Sr.DR Da…

M/S. Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1625/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)

Section 253

…m of appeal to the respondent either before or with such notice, (2) The issue of the notice referred to in sub-rule (I) shall not by. itself be deemed to mean that the appeal has been admitted." B. The ITAT in the-case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) had occasion to consider the aspect of-admissibility of appeal for hearing by observing as under: "4. A judicial body has certain inherent powers. Decisions are .taken for the purpose of proper and .expeditious disposal of the appeals in present climate-of mounting arrears partly due to appeals being filed without proper application of min…

Raj Kumar Sabharwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1399/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Kumar Sabharwal Acit 2Nd O-37, Floor, Lajpat Vs Circle 54 (1) Nagar-2, New Delhi -110024 New Delhi Pan No. Aneps1350E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…n that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed. We, therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeal preferred by the assessee, placing reliance on the ratio of decisions in the following cases :- 1. CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del); 2. Late Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT (1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP) 3. In the result, the appeal is filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2019. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* Date:- 20.02.2019…

A.C.I.T. Circle-1, Gwalior vs. Shri Hari Vallabh Shivhare, Gwalior

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed,

ITA 73/AGR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2011-12

…e is not serious in pursuing its appeal. In the circumstances, the only alternative left with us is to dismiss the ITA Nos. 73 & 76/Agr/2015 4 appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of Tribunal in CIT vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and of M.P. High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP). 5. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed, as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.02.2019. (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) Judicial member Dated: 19.02.2019 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appella…

V Kumar Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution

ITA 5264/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 V. Kumar Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, K-91, 2Nd Floor, Ward-26(1), Lajpat Nagar Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccn2394M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

…ioned below, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461. 2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.). 3. However, if the assessee, through proper application, explains the reasons for such non-appearance, the Tribunal may, at its discretion, recall this order. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution. The decision was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e.,…

M/S. Anand Triplex Board Ltd., Delhi vs. CIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3029/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishianand Triplex Board Ltd, Vs. Cit, 52, Mausam Vihar, Ghaziabad Delhi Pan: Aaeca9305M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR

M/S. Hbn Dairies & Allied Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

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

ITA 3027/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hsri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishihbn Dairies & Allied Ltd, Vs. Ito (Tds), 302-303, Vardhman Tower, Ward-50(1), Sonia Complex, Vikashpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aach7852C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Janardhan Das, Sr. DR