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 250Section 147Section 144Section 142(1)Section 148Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 25indiaopportunity of being heardsection 250nfacinteresttotal incomedocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

Sivasundara Nadar Sivaperumal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1332/CHNY/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1330, 1331, 1332, 1333 & 1334/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sivasundara Nadar Sivaperumal, Non Corporate Circle 2, No.43, Pondy Bazaar, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aasps4748M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : None अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : 01.08.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai Dated 24.03.2017 In Ita Nos.180,179,178,177 & 174/Cit(A)-2/2015- 16 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 Passed U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 271B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017
Section 250(6)

…ived. 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 dismiss the appeal in limine. The Registry is hereby directed to dispatch this order to the assessee within a period of 7 days from this day. 4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open co…

Sivasundara Nadar Sivaperumal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1331/CHNY/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1330, 1331, 1332, 1333 & 1334/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sivasundara Nadar Sivaperumal, Non Corporate Circle 2, No.43, Pondy Bazaar, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aasps4748M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : None अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : 01.08.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai Dated 24.03.2017 In Ita Nos.180,179,178,177 & 174/Cit(A)-2/2015- 16 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 Passed U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 271B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017
Section 250(6)

…ived. 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 dismiss the appeal in limine. The Registry is hereby directed to dispatch this order to the assessee within a period of 7 days from this day. 4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open co…

Sivasundara Nadar Sivaperumal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1330/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1330, 1331, 1332, 1333 & 1334/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sivasundara Nadar Sivaperumal, Non Corporate Circle 2, No.43, Pondy Bazaar, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aasps4748M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : None अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : 01.08.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai Dated 24.03.2017 In Ita Nos.180,179,178,177 & 174/Cit(A)-2/2015- 16 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 Passed U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 271B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017
Section 250(6)

…ived. 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 dismiss the appeal in limine. The Registry is hereby directed to dispatch this order to the assessee within a period of 7 days from this day. 4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open co…

S.Duraipandi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…fore the ld. CIT(A). Despite giving various opportunities of hearing to the assessee from 11.07.2013 to 20.01.2017, there was no proper representation before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, by applying the decision in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), the ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By referring to the grounds of appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues raised before him on merits and prayed that necessary directions may…

S.Duraipandi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…fore the ld. CIT(A). Despite giving various opportunities of hearing to the assessee from 11.07.2013 to 20.01.2017, there was no proper representation before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, by applying the decision in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), the ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By referring to the grounds of appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues raised before him on merits and prayed that necessary directions may…

Shri Nikhil Tusharbhai Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2207/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, Sr. DR

…Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) 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, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 26/07/2017 ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼egkohj izlkn½ ¼eg…

Shri Niranjankumar Dwarkaprasad Agarwal, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Range-12(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2202/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, Sr. DR

…Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) 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, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 26/07/2017 ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k…

Annie Alex, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 610/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.610/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vs The Acit, Smt. Annie Alex, No.5, P.V. Koil Street, Ncc 4, 1St Lane, Royapuram, Chennai – 6. Chennai – 600 013. Pan: Addpa2564M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagadevan, JCITFor Respondent: 24.07.2017
Section 250(6)

…ribunal. 3. In view of the above, I’m 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), I dismiss the appeal in limine. The Registry is hereby 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 court…

Rajendra Sahadeb Chatterjee, Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1490/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

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 July 12, 2017. (P.M. Jag…

M/S. A.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2549/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 10.07.2017

…ny adjournment petition was moved to pursue the appeal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in conducting the case, hence following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.I.T. vs. Multiplan (India) Ltd.(38 ITD 320) (Del.), I hereby dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee in limine. 3. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 10th of July, 2017. (चं" पूजार") (CHANDRA POOJARI) लेखा सद"य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated the 10th July, 2017. K s sundaram. आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Co…

Avtara Singh Chera, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Durgapur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 2228/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2227 & 2228/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Avtara Singh Chera -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1(4) Durgapur Durgapur. [Pan : Aiopc 8684 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 2227 & 2228/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Avtara Singh Chera -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1(4) Durgapur Durgapur. [PAN : AIOPC 8684 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 14.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These appeals of the assessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Durgapur [ in short the ld CITA] in Appeal Nos.69 & 83/CIT(A)/DGP/2011-12 date…

Avtara Singh Chera, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Durgapur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 2227/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2227 & 2228/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Avtara Singh Chera -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1(4) Durgapur Durgapur. [Pan : Aiopc 8684 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 2227 & 2228/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Avtara Singh Chera -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1(4) Durgapur Durgapur. [PAN : AIOPC 8684 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 14.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These appeals of the assessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Durgapur [ in short the ld CITA] in Appeal Nos.69 & 83/CIT(A)/DGP/2011-12 date…

M/S. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 1696/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1693 To 1696/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-12(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccc 4539 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 1693 to 1696/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/s. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-12(1) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AACCC 4539 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 15.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 ORDER Per Bench 1. These appeals of the assessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central-III, Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] in Appeal N…

M/S. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 1695/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1693 To 1696/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-12(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccc 4539 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 1693 to 1696/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/s. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-12(1) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AACCC 4539 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 15.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 ORDER Per Bench 1. These appeals of the assessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central-III, Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] in Appeal N…

M/S. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 1694/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1693 To 1696/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-12(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccc 4539 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 1693 to 1696/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/s. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-12(1) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AACCC 4539 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 15.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 ORDER Per Bench 1. These appeals of the assessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central-III, Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] in Appeal N…

M/S. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 1693/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1693 To 1696/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-12(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccc 4539 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 1693 to 1696/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/s. Chetali Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-12(1) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AACCC 4539 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 15.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 ORDER Per Bench 1. These appeals of the assessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central-III, Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] in Appeal N…

Sri Jagannath Hazra, Burdwan vs. ITO Ward-1(4) Burdwan, Burdwan

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

ITA 75/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Shri A.L. Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 75/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Pravash Roy, Addl. JCIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM & Shri A.L. Saini, AM] I.T.A No. 75/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Jagannath Hazra,53, B.C.Road. -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1(4), Burdwan Burdwan Complex, Room No.-2, Burdwan, Pin-713101. [PAN : AANPH 8799 J) (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Pravash Roy, Addl. JCIT Date of Hearing : 05.07.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 05.07.2017. ORDER Per Dr. A.L.SAINI, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28.10.2016 of CIT(A)-Burdwan, relating to AY 2005-…

Bajkul Sports Association, Kolkata vs. CIT, -Xviii, Kolkata

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

ITA 558/KOL/2015[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2017

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

Section 12ASection 80G

…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 these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution. 4. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on July 05…

Tamilnadu Steel Tubes Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 63/CHNY/2016[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Sagadevan, JCITFor Respondent: 05.07.2017
Section 250(6)

…urnment. 3. In view of the above, I’m 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), I dismiss the appeal in limine. The Registry is hereby 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 court…

S.Kannagi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1594/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Sagadevan, JCITFor Respondent: 04.07.2017
Section 250(6)

…Ld. AR. 3. In view of the above, I’m 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), I dismiss the appeal in limine. The Registry is hereby 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 court…