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 367,714 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. Vibha Overseas Exim Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4121/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Vibha Overseas Exim Pvt. Ltd. , Vs Dcit, Circle 17(1), 12/6, Gurukul Indraprastha, New Delhi. Anangpur Road, Faridabad. Pan: Aabcv0051A

…ny application for adjournment nor for change of address in the record. In view of above, it is presumed that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. 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 the revenue 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 unad…

M/S. Adarsh Marketing, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2048/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Adarsh Marketing, Vs. Ito, Hcmr, Ware Housing Complex, Ward-34(1), Gate No. 4, Mela Ram Vatika, New Delhi Mandoli, Delhi Pan: Aagfa3886L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, 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…

Shonaline Agnes Kaula, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1500/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Ms. Shonaline Agnes Kaula Vs. The Dy. C.I.T C/O Mohit Malhotra Circle 1(1) Apartment No. N-213, Dlf Park Gurgaon Place, Dlf City, Phase – V Sector – 54, Gurgaon Pan : Bfupk 9876 E [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, 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. 1500/DEL/2015 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 26.06.2018. [H.S. SIDHU] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 26th June, 2018 VL/ 3…

Bonanza Enterprises, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- I, Roorkee

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

ITA 7481/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2011-12 Bonanza Enterprises Vs. Ito, 150, B.T. Ganj Roorkee Ward 1, Haridwar Roorkee Pan : Aahfb1895M

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 : 2011-12 Bonanza Enterprises Vs. ITO, 150, B.T. Ganj Roorkee Ward 1, Haridwar Roorkee PAN : AAHFB1895M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri B.R. Mishra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 25.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 25.06.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 27.9.2017 in relation to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on beh…

Rsi Private Limited (Formerly Rsi Limited), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 3, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 302/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

…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 RSI Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2005-06 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 assessee is dismi…

S R Timber Products Pvt Ltd, Howrah vs. DCIT, Cir-13(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 393/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

…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 S. R. Timber Products 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…

Shri Dipakbhai D. Patel, Na

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

ITA 1043/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1043/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Dipakbhai D. Patel, 16 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shrikunj, Ashabaug Society , Ward-1, Navsari Navsari Pan:Abjpp3116E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…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.” Further, in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), there was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date, hence, on the basis of inherent powers, the Tribunal treated the appeal; filed by the revenue; as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is d…

Md Synergy India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4878/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Md Synergy India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 138, Deshbandhu Apartments, Ward-16(1), Room No.312, C.R. Kalkaji, New Delhi Building, New Delhi Pan :Aaecm8918N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2018 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-Iii, New Delhi, Dated 31.03.2010 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. None Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Hearing Despite Issue Of Notice For Hearing, Through Rpad At The Address Furnished By The Assessee In Column 7 Of The Memo Of Appeal In Form No. 36. The Envelope, Containing The Notice Of Hearing Has Returned Unserved With The Remark “Left”. No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Received On Behalf Of The Assessee. It Gives An Impression That Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Appeal. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), The Assessee’S Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution. 4. The Hon'Ble Madhya Pradesh High Court In The Case Of Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt (223 Itr 480) Has Held As Under:

…n that assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. 3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: 2 "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…

Goodwill Hospital & Research Centre Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3270/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…not interested in pursuing the appeal filed. We, therefore, have no option but to Assessment year: 2010-11 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 assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st June, 2018. (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21st JUNE, 2018 ‘GS’…

Swiber Offshore Marine Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1519/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Swiber Offshore Marine Pte. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O- Srbc & Associates Llp, 14Th International Taxation, Circle -2, Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Dehradun Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai Pan :Aajcs6025K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2018 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi, Dated 10.12.2014, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. On The Last Date Of Hearing, I.E., 24.05.2018, When The Case Was Called Upon, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & The Case Was Adjourned To 21.06.2018 With The Direction To Issue Fresh Notice, Which Has Not Returned Unserved. Today, I.E., 21.06.2018, Again None Turned Up On Behalf Of The Assessee & Even No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee. It Gives An Impression That Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Appeal. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), The Assessee’S Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution. 4. The Hon'Ble Madhya Pradesh High Court In The Case Of Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt (223 Itr 480) Has Held As Under:

Naina Traders Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 712/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am,] I.T.A No. 712/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Naina Traders Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- Ito, Ward-1, Kolkata [Pan : Aabcn 6425 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM,] I.T.A No. 712/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Naina Traders Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- ITO, Ward-1, Kolkata [PAN : AABCN 6425 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT Date of Hearing : 20.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata [in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No.633/CIT(A)- I/W-1(2)/2015-16 dat…