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 367,518 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.

Sh. Venkat Phani Raj Kumar Mararaju, Hyderabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6765/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Nand Kumar Shate, Sr. 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…

T.O.Philip Adfvertising Co.P. Ltd, Kottayam vs. The ACIT, Cir-1, Kottayam

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

ITA 182/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

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

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

…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.182/Coch/2018. 2 M/s.T.O.Philip Advertising Co. Pvt.Ltd. 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, 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 16th day of October, 2018. (Chandra P…

Ratchet Laboratories Ltd., Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

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

ITA 3594/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratchet Laboratories Limited, Vs Asstt.Cit, I-965, Opposite Main Power House, Karnal Circle, Kunjpura Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Karnal-132001, Sector-12, Haryana. Karnal-132001, (Pan: Aaccr8581L) Haryana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 8.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 8.10.2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Sr. DR

…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); and 2. Late Tukoji Rao Holkar vs CWT (1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP) 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th October, 2018. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (G.D. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT Dated: 8th OCTOBER , 2018 ‘GS’…

M/S R.K. Stock Holding (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Moradabad

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

ITA 3120/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 R.K. Stock Holding (P) Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, A-7, Block B-1, Circle Ii, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, Moradabad. Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Pan: Aaccr0011K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Aparna Karan, Cit Dr

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

…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); and 2. Late Tukoji Rao Holkar vs CWT (1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP) 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th October, 2018. (G.D. AGRAWAL) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 8th OCTOBER , 2018 ‘GS’…

M/S. Balaji Fruit Co., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3061/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR

…erested in prosecution of the present appeal. 3. Keeping in view the legal position that mere issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeal and this issue has been squarely decided by Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the present appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from putting his appearance at the time of hearing. 4. In view of above, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as unadmitted. Order pronounc…

M/S. Potential Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2070/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am M/S. Potential Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata 20, N.S. Road, 1St Floor, Left Block, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp 0265 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant By : None Revenue By : Shri G. Hangshing, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 05/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-2013, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 19.07.2017. 2. Notice Of Hearing Of This Appeal Was Sent To The Assessee At The Address Given By The Assessee In Form No.36. The Said Notice Has Not Been Returned Unserved. This Appeal Was Listed For Hearing Before The Tribunal On 24.09.2018. Today I.E. On 24.09.2018 When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Request For Adjournment Was Made. It Means That Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting This Appeal. Hence The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non Prosecution. For This View We Find Support From The Following Decisions :- (1). In The Case Of Cit Vs B.N.Bhattachrgee & Another, Reported In 118 Itr 461 [Relevant Pages 477 & 478] Wherein Their Lordships Have Held That : “The Appeal Does Not Mean Merely Filing Of The Appeal But Effectively Pursuing It.” (2). In The Case Of Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs Cwt; 223 Itr 480 (Mp) While Dismissing The Reference Made At The Instance Of The Assessee In Default Made Following Observation In Their Order : “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 Paper Books So As To Enable Hearing Of The Reference, The Court Is Not Bound To Answer The Reference.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT(DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM M/s. Potential Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata 20, N.S. Road, 1st Floor, Left Block, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAGCP 0265 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri G. Hangshing, CIT(DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 05/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2012-2013, is directed a…

Hannan Ali Ostagar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2083/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Hannan Ali Ostagar V/S. Income Tax Officer, Modnal Ganthi Kaikhali, Ward-49(2), Kolkata Baguihati, Kolkata-700 052 [Pan No.Aafpo 0463 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15Kolkata’S Order Dated 23.08.2016, Passed In Case No.08/Cit(A)-15/15-16/Wd-49(2)/Kol, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Today When The Case Was Called For Hearing None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Was Any Application For An Adjournment Filed By The Assessee In Spite Of Issue Of Notice By Rpad. It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Serious In Prosecuting This Appeal. Hence The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution. For This View, We Find Support From The Following Decisions:- "1. In The Case Of Cit Vs B.N.Bhattacharjee & Another, Reported In 118 Itr 461 [Relevant Pages 477 & 478] Wherein Their Lordships Have Held That: "The Appeal Does Not Mean Merely Filing Of The Appeal But Effectively Pursuing It."

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 Hannan Ali Ostagar V/s. Income Tax Officer, Modnal Ganthi Kaikhali, Ward-49(2), Kolkata Baguihati, Kolkata-700 052 [PAN No.AAFPO 0463 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 05-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Me…

M/S Himachal Gramin Bank, Mandi vs. Jcti, Range, Mandi

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

ITA 1574/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1574/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Himachal Gramin Bank, The Jcit, Mandi Range, बनाम Jawahar Nagar, Mandi (H.P). Mandi, H.P. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaath3599R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ -“ए”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1574/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s Himachal Gramin Bank, The JCIT, Mandi Range, बनाम Jawahar Nagar, Mandi (H.P). Mandi, H.P. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAATH3599R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hear…

Sh. Prakash Bhalekar, Pune vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3737/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. K. Hauthang, Sr. DR

Section 253

M/S Starmark Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1100/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am,] I.T.A No. 1100/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Starmark Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- Ito, Ward-9(4), Kolkata [Pan : Aapcs 0852 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri S.S.Godara, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM,] I.T.A No. 1100/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Starmark Sales Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata [PAN : AAPCS 0852 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2018 ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM 1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata [in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No.62/CIT(A)- 3/ITO, Wd…

M/S Subhlaxami Barter (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 368/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangshing,CIT,ld. Sr.DR

…efore, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. In view of the above, 1 I.T.A No 368/Kol/2016 M/s. Subhalaxmi Barter P.Ltd. following the decisions of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P) Limited reported in 38 ITD 320(Del) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in (223 ITR 480(MP), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03-10-2018 M. Balaganesh S.S.Viswanethra Ra…

N.N. Intratrade Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 17(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3052/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Blue Precision Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, 1A/257, Neelam Bata Road, New Delhi. Faridabad. Pan: Aabcb4579R Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. B.S. Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 3.10.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 23.02.2015 In Appeal No.68/13-14 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals),Faridabad (For Short Hereinafter Called “Ld. Cita”). 2. When The Matter Is Called Today, There Is No Representation For The Assessee. On An Earlier Occasion, I.E. On 25.06.2018, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Notice Is Issued In This Matter To The Assessee To The Address

…t the assessee lost interest in this matter, and we are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. 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 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 assessee as unadmitted in view…