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 367,636 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 Indra Commosales Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 802/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 802/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Indra Commosales Pvt. Ltd................................………………………….....................Appellant 1, Crooked Lane, 2Nd Floor, R.No. 208, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan: Aacci 2949 F] Ito, Ward 6(3), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 2, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 2, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 2, Kolkata Dated 03.01.2017. 2. At The Time Of Hearing Fixed In This Case Today, None Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Seeking Adjournment Has Been Filed. Even The Notice Of The Said Hearing Send To The Assessee At The Address Given In The Appeal Memo Has Come Back Undelivered From The Postal Authority With The Remark ‘Not Known’. The Assessee Thus Has Not Furnished Its Correct Address To Enable The Registry To Serve The Notice Of Hearing. It Is Also Noted That There Was A Similar Non-Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) As A Result Of Which Its Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A) Vide His Impugned Order Passed Ex-Parte. It Appears From This Non-Compliant & Non-Cooperative Attitude Of The Assessee Company

…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 for non prosecution. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 2nd July…

Sh. Ishwar Chand Singla, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1263/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Ms. Parmita Tripathi, CIT-(DR)

Section 263

…l of 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…

M/S. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun vs. ACIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 647/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Mussoorie Dehradun Vs. Acit, Development Authority, Circle-2, Transport Nagar, Saharanpur Dehradun Road, Near Isbt, Dehradun Pan: Aaaam4651Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.R.Senapati, 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…

M/S. Srk Educatior & Research Charitable Trust, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2154/DEL/2015[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y.: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: SH. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)

Section 12A

…w of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeal. Page 1 of 3 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT 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 Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. We would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpo…

Kailash Educational & Charitable Society, New Delhi vs. DIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 6484/DEL/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Varma, CIT-DR

…odied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS 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 in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat these appeals as unadmitted. ITA Nos. 6483 & 6484/Del/2014 Kailash Educational & Charitable Society vs. DIT(Exemptions), New Delhi 4. 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…

Kailash Educational & Charitable Society, New Delhi vs. DIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 6483/DEL/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Varma, CIT-DR

Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust, Dehradun vs. CIT (Central), Kanpur

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

ITA 4775/DEL/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillaidr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust Vs. The C.I.T Kotla Santoor, Prem Nagar Kanpur Dehradun [Uttaranchal]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, 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 of the assessee in ITA No. 4775/DEL/2014 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 02.07.2018. sd/- [BEENA PILLAI] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 02nd July, 2018 VL/ 3…

Meinhardt Singapore Pte. Ltd.- India Branch Office, Noida vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 6510/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: FixedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…us. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeals. Therefore, the appeals of the assessee deserve to be dismissed in limine for want of prosecution in view of the orders 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). 3. Before parting, we think it appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, then it may, if so advised, pray for recall of this order and decision on merits. 4. In the result, a…

Bimla Narang, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3684/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bimla Narang Vs. Ito Ward 53(1), Shop No. 8, Khanna New Delhi Market, Lodhi Colony New Delhi Pan : Abupn9118P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Mishra, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bimla Narang Vs. ITO Ward 53(1), Shop No. 8, Khanna New Delhi Market, Lodhi Colony New Delhi PAN : ABUPN9118P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri B.R. Mishra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 28.06.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-18, New Delhi on 7.4.2017 in relation to Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. When the matter was called up for hearing toda…

Smt. Shakuntla Educational & Welfare Society, Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT (TDS), Noida

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

ITA 1350/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaa.Y.: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: SH. K. Tewari, Sr. DR

…w of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeal. Page 1 of 2 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT 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 Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. We would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpo…

M/S Global Capital Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4153/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2001-02 M/S Global Capital Ltd. Vs Dcit, Circle 12(1), 414/1, 4Th Floor, Dda Commercial New Delhi. Complex, Distt. Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg3130E Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 26.03.2012 In Appeal No. 162/2011-12 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi (For Short Hereinafter Called “Ld. Cita”). 2. When The Matter Is Called Today, There Is No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Either In Person Or Through His Ar. It Means That Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. 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 Assesee As Unadmitted In View Of The Provisions Of Rule 19 Of The Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Respectfully Following The Said Decision, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed For Non- Prosecution.

…see is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. 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 assesee as unadmitted in view o…

New Delhi Municipal Council, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 6352/DEL/2014[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.:- 6352/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2011-12 New Delhi Municipal Council ACIT, Accounts Officer (CBS/Accounts) Circle-50(1) Vs. Main Accounts Branch New Delhi. R.Bo. 6010, Palika Kendra, Parliament Street,’ New Delhi – 110 001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28/06/2018 Date of 28/06/2018 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.…

M/S Neo Sack Ltd vs. The ACIT 4(2)

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

ITA 263/IND/2008[05-Apr]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 43BSection 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE Before Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’ble Judicial Member and Shri Manish Borad, Hon’ble Accountant Member ITA Nos. 262/Ind/2008, 413/Ind/2007 & 263/Ind/2008 A.Ys. 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/s Neo Sack Limited Indore ::: Appellant Vs ACIT, 4(2) Respondent Indore ::: ITA Nos.574/Ind/2002, 682/Ind/2003, 683/Ind/2003 & 395/Ind/2007 A.Ys. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2003-04 ACIT 4(2) Indore ::: Appellant Vs M/s Neo Sack Limited Indore ::: Respondent CO Nos. 75 & 76/Ind/2009 Arising out of ITA Nos. 682 & 683/Ind/2003 M/s Neo Sack Limited Indore ::: Objector…

M/S Neo Sack Ltd vs. The ACIT 4(2)

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

ITA 262/IND/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

Section 43BSection 5

Snigdha Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-52(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 177/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 177/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B “ BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri S.S.Godara, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 177/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Snigdha Saha -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-52 (3) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : BIRPS 8259 K] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 27.06.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2018. ORDER PER S.S.GODARA, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 24.11.2015 of C.I.T.(A)-7, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2011-12. 2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on several occasions. N…

Gladder Ceramics Limited, Sabarkantha vs. The Dy. CIT., S.K. Circle, Sabarkantha

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 827/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Singh, 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, all the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 26…

M/S Mdbp Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolkata, Durgapur

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2261/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…eans effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance. 2 MDBP Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 3. We, further, make it clear that if the assessee is advised to move appropriate application to recall this order, then it is at liberty to do so for just cause and the Tribunal may decide in accordance to law. 4. In the result, appeal of…

M/S Paras Paraoxide (P) Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 2373/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Paras Paraoxide (P) Ltd, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of 367, Patel Nagar, Income Tax, Muzaffarnagar, Up Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

M/S. Ganpatie Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2002/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: None presentFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 263

…it is apparent that it is not interested in pursuing these appeals. We, therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeals 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 assessee’s appeals stands dismissed. Assessment year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26th June, 2018. (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26th JUNE, 2018 ‘GS’…

M/S. Ganpatie Traders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals stands dismissed

ITA 2001/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: None presentFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 263