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.

Narasimha Reddy Koduru, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1311/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 Narasimha Reddy Koduru, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Srinivas Reddy

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148

…smiss the appeal 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 decision 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 this appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 3. Even on merits, it is observed that the assessee, Director of M/s KNR Contractors Pvt. Ltd., filed his return of income on 15/10/2010 for the AY 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs. 1,61,47,110/-. A survey u/s…

M/S Anuska Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed in limine

ITA 163/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Anuska Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Income Tax Officer, 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Ward-4(3), Aaykar Mezanine Floor Room No.12 Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee [Pan No.Aarcs 1050 L] Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arindam Bhattacharya, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 01-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata Dated 26.10.2016. 2. Today When The Matter Was Called On For Hearing, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed By The Assessee Though Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To Assessee Through Rpad. From The Above, It Is Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Case. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & 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), 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:

…nferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its case. 3. Considering the facts of the case 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), 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: ITA No.163/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Anuska Vanijya Pvt .Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-4(3), Kol. Page 2 "if the party, at whose instance the reference i…

Time Sound Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2236/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 2236/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Time Sound Promoters (P)Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-4(1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaect 1771 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl.Cit(Dr)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 2236/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Time Sound Promoters (P)Ltd. -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-4(1), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAECT 1771 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 13.02.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 03.08.2016 of C.I.T- (A)-2, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2012-13. 2. Notice of hearing was sent to the a…

Swagatam Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The CIT, Kolkata-3, Kolkata

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

ITA 1474/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1474/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swagatam Merchandise (P)Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kolkata-3, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aamcs 6590 C] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Md.Usman, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Md.Usman, CIT(DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 1474/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swagatam Merchandise (P)Ltd. -vs.- C.I.T., Kolkata-3, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAMCS 6590 C] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Md.Usman, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 22.02.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 17.05.2016 of Pr.C.I.T.-3, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2010-11. 2. Notice of hearing for 22.02.2018 was sent to th…

Kasinath Behera, Keonjhar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 245/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR

…1.2018 has not been returned back by the postal authorities unserved. This shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing this appeal. Therefore, following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28/02/2018. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (N. S. SAINI) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 28/02/2018 प्र.कु.मि/PKM, Senior Priv…

M/S Snowfall Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD.4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands dismissed in limine

ITA 121/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09 M/S Snowfall Commercial V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. 27, Christopher Ward-4(1), Aaykar Road, Ekta Floral, Flat No. Bhawan, P-7, E, Block-3, 6Th Floor, Chowringhee Kolkata-46 Square, Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aakcs 7764 C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 23.02.2016. 2. Today When The Matter Was Called On For Hearing, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Adjournment Application Filed By The Assessee Though Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To Assessee Through Rpad. From The Above, It Is Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Case. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & 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), 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:

…nferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its case. 3. Considering the facts of the case 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), 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: ITA No.121/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 M/s Snowfall Commercial Pvt.Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-4(1), Kol. Page 2 "if the party, at whose instance the referen…

Marg Projects & Infrastructure Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2585/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2585/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Marg Projects & Infrastructure Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 4/318, Marg Axis, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Vs. Income Tax, Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. Corporate Circle 4(1), [Pan: Aaccm9037G] Chennai 600 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. Ruby George, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 22.08.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. Besides, Raising The Issue Of Estimating The Assessee’S Gross Profit At 14.02%, The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2585/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/s. Marg Projects & Infrastructure Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of 4/318, Marg Axis, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Vs. Income Tax, Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. Corporate Circle 4(1), [PAN: AACCM9037G] Chennai 600 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by :…

Sahyadri Renewables Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6933/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: M.C. Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR

…t considering additional evidences submitted by the assessee before him. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, was not justified in dismissing the appeal by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi high court rendered in Multiplan India Pvt. Ld. 38 ITD 320. Therefore, on factual matrix, the bench formed an opinion that the assessee deserves another opportunity of being heard and substantiate his case before Ld. first appellate authority. In view of the stated fact, the quantum appeal stands remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication with a direction to assessee to substantiate…

Pmp Steel Rolling Mills (Madras) P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1057/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.A.S.Sriraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Sailendra Mamidi, CIT

…ions. 6. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that the Ld.CIT(A) has granted the assessee substantial number of opportunities. The Ld.CIT(A) was also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, ‘D’ Bench in the case of Multiplan India reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.). The decision in the case of Mutiplan India was a case where the notice could not be served by the Revenue on the assessee, consequent to which, the Revenue’s appeal had been dismissed. That is not the case here. This being so and also considering the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be granted another…

Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti, Tonk vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Jaipur

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

ITA 1016/JPR/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2018AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld Cit(E) As Well. It Thus Appears That The Applicant Is Not Interested To Pursue Its Case Seriously, So In The Present Circumstances Of The Case, Following The Decision Of Delhi Bench Of Itat In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 Itd 320 & Also 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 Dismissed In Limine.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ran Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 12A

…before the ld CIT(E) as well. It thus appears that the applicant is not interested to pursue its case seriously, so in the present circumstances of the case, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 and also 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 dismissed in limine. 3. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recal…

Ride Master Rims (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT (OSD), Corporate Range-5, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2140/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

…has been filed. Hence, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals. 3. Therefore, having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on the 20th February, 2018 at Chennai. (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ch…

Ride Master Rims (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT, Company Circle V (4), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2139/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Samco Metals & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1652/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1652/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Acit, M/S. Samco Metals & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.29, 2Nd Cross Street, Vgp Corporate Circe 6(1), Chennai. Murthy Square, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaacs3109F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant By ""यथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit

For Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT

Section 263

…tion. 3. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed before this Tribunal. Hence, following the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we hereby dismiss the appeal in limine. The Registry is directed to dispatch this order to the assessee within a period of 7 days from this day. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open cour…

M/S J.P. Construction, Agra vs. DCIT-1, Agra

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

ITA 203/AGR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

…it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal any further. As such, I hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard I place reliance upon the following case laws: 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) I.T.A No. 203/Agra/2016 2 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), I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. T…

Shri Shaikh Alimuddin, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 347/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

…ance 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.” iii) In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India 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/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent power…

Bachi Shoes Ltd., Vellore vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.349/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Bachi Shoes Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.47, Old No.14, Income Tax, Thiyararajapuram, Circle I, Vellore 632 001. Vellore.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT

…essee appeared nor has any adjournment request been received. Hence, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following the decision of the Delhi Bench of :- 2 -: the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), We dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee, for non- prosecution. 2. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on fourteen, the 14th day of February, 2018, at Chennai. (धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी) (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER च…

Manick Lal Dey, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-45(3), Kolkata

In the result, both appeal of assessee stand dismissed in limine

ITA 2240/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…nferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its case. 3. Considering the facts of the case 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), 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: ITA No.2239-2240/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Manick Lal Dey Vs. ITO Wd-45(3), Kol. Page 2 "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made,…

Manick Lal Dey, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-45(3), Kolkata

In the result, both appeal of assessee stand dismissed in limine

ITA 2239/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…nferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its case. 3. Considering the facts of the case 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), 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: ITA No.2239-2240/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Manick Lal Dey Vs. ITO Wd-45(3), Kol. Page 2 "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made,…

Sk. Altaf Hossain, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1456/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

…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, I 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 12th day of February, 2…

Rajni Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(3) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2453/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…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 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 480, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Cou…