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. Rudraksh Enterprise & Developers, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 1582/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1582/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B. L. Meena, Sr.D.R

…at the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. 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.). 3. 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, to seek for a recall of this order. 4. In the result, appea…

Tarun Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 4898/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

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

…mitted. 2 ITA.No.4898/Del./2018 Shri Tarun Kumar, Ghaziabad. 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…

Vineet Khattar, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 4808/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

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

…ted. 2 ITA.No.4808/Del./2018 Shri Vineet Khattar, Faridabad. 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. Veepee Plastics Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 13(5), Pune

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

ITA 1200/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1200/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Veepee Plastics Pvt. Ltd., 3/13, Vaswani Kunj, Sadhu Vaswani Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaacv6271B Vs.

For Appellant: Shri P.D. KudvaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 143(3)

…is not as per provisions of law and is invalid. 3. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of assessee in limine by applying the ratio laid down by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. (1979) 10 CTR 354 : (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and not deciding the issue on merits. 4. I find merit in the plea raised by the assessee where the CIT(A) has decided the issue ex-parte the assessee. On perusal of order of CIT(A), it is apparent that the appeal of assessee was di…

Sri Nirmal Kr. Nandi, Prop. of Usha Construction, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward - 3(1), Bankura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1978/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1978/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Nirmal Kr. Nandi,.................................………………………………………………………….Appellant (Prop. Of Usha Construction, Bellia, Jambedia, Bankura – 722 239. [Pan: Adspn 4713 E] Ito Ward 3(1), Bankura...................……………………………………………………….......Respondent Kenduadihi, Bankura -722 102. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder Sr(Dr), Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 07, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Durgapur Dated 22.06.2017 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 76,655/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In This Case, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Fixed For Hearing On 07.08.2018. None, However, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Said Date & Accordingly, The Hearing Was A Djourned To 18.09.2018. On 18.09.2018, The Assessee Sought Adjournment & Accordingly, The Hearing Was Adjourned To 12.11.2018. On 12.11.2018, None Again Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. In Order To Give One More Opportunity To The Assessee, The Hearing Was Adjourned To 29.11.2018. On 29.11.2018, The Assessee Again Sought Adjournment & Accordingly, The Hearing Was Adjourned To 31.12.2018. On 2 Sri Nirmal Kr. Nandi (Prop. Usha Construction)

Section 271B

…This principle is embodied in the well known dictum – “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Halkar vs C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 7th February, 2019. (A. T. V…

M/S. Dewa Projects P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 126/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…g the appeal, and no useful purpose would be served I.T.A. No.126/Coch/2016 by adjourning the hearing. Considering these facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules, as were considered in the case of Multiplan India, reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del) and in view of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, reported in 223 ITR 480, we dismiss the appeal in limine. However, the assessee is at liberty to give explanation with regard to its non-appearance before the Tribunal on the date of hearing before the Tribunal by filing Miscellan…

Deepakkumar Navinchandra Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1864/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. L. Meena, Sr. D.R

…sessee though the notice fixing the date of hearing was served on Assessee, which indicates that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, therefore, following the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. The assessee shall however be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling of this order, if prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 06 - 02- 2019 (AMARJI…

M/S Dhara Foundation, Bhilwara vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 813/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: None (AD card is on record)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan (JCIT)

Section 143(3)

…ore us. 3. In view of the above facts and circumstances we found that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of the appeal. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 and also on the judgment of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and is dismissed in limine. ITA 813/JP/2018_ 3 Dhara Foundation Vs ITO(E) 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on 05th…

Shri Sandeep Chona, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1266/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2006-07 Sandeep Chona, Vs. Ito, 9/54, Basement Vikram Vihar, Ward-33(4), Lajpat Nagar Iv, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aevpc3102N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th October, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-17, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Despite Service Of Notice, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Petition Seeking Adjournment Of The Case Was Filed. This Type Of Conduct On The Part Of The Assessee Shows That He Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Field By Him. Therefore, Following The Decisions Mentioned 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.).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, 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 Gold Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 1094/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Gold Enterprise, No.79/1, 1St Floor, 2Nd Cross, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aagfg9497B Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 6(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Acit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Bengaluru, Dated 29/02/2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 02. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor An Adjournment Application Has Been Filed. On Perusal Of Records, It Was Found That The Notice Of Hearing Sent By Registered Letter, Fixing The Case For Hearing On 04/02/2019 Was Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remarks ‘Door Locked’. Vakalathnama Has Been Filed On Record & On Earlier Page 2 Of 2 Occasions Also, Learned Ar For Assessee Sought Adjournments. Therefore, We Are Of The Opinion That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal & Accordingly Dismiss The Appeal For Non-Prosecution, Following The Decision Of The Delhi Bench Of The Itat In Cit V. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 Itd 320 & Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madhya Pradesh High Court In The Case Of Estate Of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar V. Cwt (1997) 223 Itr 480, For Non-Prosecution.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, ACIT(DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Gold Enterprise, No.79/1, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant PAN:AAGFG9497B Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : None. Respondent by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, ACIT(DR) Date of hearing: 04/02/2019 Date of pronouncement: 04/02/2019 O R D E R Per PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Bengaluru, dated 29/02/2016 for the…

The Sub Registrar, Pardi vs. The DIT(I&Ci), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the five appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1668/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: None**For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R.**

Section 271FSection 274

…e assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeals filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeals of the assessee *in limine.* 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 Holka vs. CWT: 223 ITR480 (M.P.). - 3. The appeals of the assessee are also time barred. However, the assessee has not filed any reason for late filing of appeals. It is also noticed even before the ld. Director of Income Tax (I &CI), the assessee has neither attended nor responded or filed any submission during…

Varia Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1231/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Parting, It Is Appropriate To Add That In Case The Assessee Is Able To Show That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Non-Representation On The Date Of Hearing, It Would Be At Liberty If So Advised To Pray For A Recall Of This Order.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jagadish, CIT-D.R

Section 263

…t the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. 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 Holka vs. CWT: 223 ITR480 (M.P.). 3. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order. 4. In the result, the appeal of the A…

Shri Bhupinderjit Singh Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3573/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Bhupinderjit Singh Sawhney, Vs. Ito, C/O Prem Amar & Company, Cas, Ward-26(2), 69, Dda Flats, Jwala Heri, New Delhi. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Pan: Aaxps2112A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Was Being Fixed For Hearing On A Number Of Times & Was Last Fixed On 31St October, 2018. Since None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On That Date, Therefore, Notice Was Issued Fixing The Date Of Hearing For Today I.E., On 31.01.2019. However, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Name Of The Assessee Was Called. This Type Of Conduct On The Part Of The Assessee Shows That He Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Field By Him. Therefore, Following The Decisions Mentioned 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.).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

Hari Krishna Pampatti, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1139/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanshri Hari Krishna Pampatti Vs Income Tax Officer Karimnagar Ward 3(4) Pan:Abtpp3961H Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : N O N E For Revenue : Shri A.C. Rout, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is Assessee’S Appeal For The A.Y 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad, Dated 16.02.2018. 2. We Notice That This Appeal Is Coming Up For Hearing Since 16.11.2018 & When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing On 11.01.2019 Also, We Notice That None Appeared For The Assessee Inspite Of Issuance Of The Notice For Hearing. Therefore, It Is Presumed That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Proceed With The Appeal.

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri A.C. Rout, DR

…for non- prosecution as held by Hon’ble High court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise appeal No. 62 of 2009. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision and also of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., (38 ITD 320) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th January, 2019. (S.Rifaur Rahman) Judicial Member Hyderabad, dated 30th January, 2019. Vinodan/sps Copy to: 1 Sh…

Shri Jitendra B. Rathod, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1996/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…Tukojirao Holkar-vs-CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) Shri Jitendra B. Rathod vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2010-11 dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. We, therefore, are inclined to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution. However the assessee is at liberty to apply for the recall of the order within the prescribed time after furnishing the suitable reasons for non-appearance.…

Paramsukh Properties Private Limited, North 24 Parganas vs. ACIT, Circle - 15(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 605/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…1 Paramsukh Properties Pvt. Ltd, AY:2013-14 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B(SMC)” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B(SMC)” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य ) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 605/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Paramsukh Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AABCP9050D) Circle-15(1), Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2019 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri Raja Sengupta, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal filed by the assessee against…

Shri Arvind Sukhani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1849/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…1 Arvind sukhani, AY:2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A(SMC)” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A(SMC)” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य ) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1849/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Arvind Sukhani Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-2(2), Kolkata (PAN: APKPS6853A) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2019 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri Raja Sengupta, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata dated 26.06.20…

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, RG.5(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 4701/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Manoj Kuamr Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 254(1)

…e assessee submits that the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal of assessee without giving fair and sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by following the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320) and decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480 (MP). The ld. AR further submits that the decision of ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with 2 ITA No. 4701 & 4702 Mum 2017-Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee sought the ad…

Skyscrappers Steels Ltd., [ Earlier Known As Govind Impex Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 602/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…s principle is embodied in the well known dictum - “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT –vs.- Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar –vs.- C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on January 29, 2019. (S.S.…

Sanjay Rajaram Sonawane, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(3), Mumbai

In the result ground number one of the appeal is allowed

ITA 4644/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Manoj Kuamr Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(3)Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUAMR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4645/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Sanjay Rajaram Sonawane DCIT-10(3) Room No. 451, 4th Floor, Shop No.4, Guru Ashish, Mahatma Phule Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Panvel, 400020. District-Raigad-410206. PAN: AEGPS3334B Appellant Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (DR) Date of Hearing : 29.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL ME…