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 367,368 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 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.

Smt. Latesh Panwar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3320/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm Ita No. 3320/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Latesh Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, L/H Late Sh. Jasvir Singh Panwar, Ward-33(4), 2236/2, Shadi Pur, Khampur, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajpp4985C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. H. S. Sidhu, JM ITA No. 3320/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Latesh Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, L/H Late Sh. Jasvir Singh Panwar, Ward-33(4), 2236/2, Shadi Pur, Khampur, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJPP4985C Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28.02.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi. 2. Earlier this case was fixed…

R.Dhanalakshmi, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1147/CHNY/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

…essee by registered post was returned as unclaimed. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the case. Following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) :- 2 -: (Del), I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee, for non-prosecution. 2. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on Thursday, 29th June, 2017, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai "दनांक/Dated: 29th June, 2017 KV आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy to…

Interkiln Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2489/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, 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 29/06/2017 ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k…

Aricon Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. DR

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

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

ITA 1697/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2017AY 2003-2004

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…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, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on June 22,…

Deepakl Kumar, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1340/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

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

…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 this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on June 22, 2017. (…

Suman Lakhani, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2203/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushalendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

…ely inferred that the assessee is not serious in pursuing its appeal. In the circumstances, the only alternative left with us is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order 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. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 21.06.2017. (BHAVNESH SAINI) Accountant Member Dated : 21.06.2017 *aks/- Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner…

G.Girijasekaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 743/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.743/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. G. Girijasekaran, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5, Old No. 21, 5Th Street, Vs. Income Tax, X-Block, Anna Nagar Circle Xiii, Chennai 600 040. Chennai 34. [Pan:Aibpg2534Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017 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) 7, Chennai Dated 15.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Request Of The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, The Appeal Is Adjourned & Posted For Hearing On 16.08.2016. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, At The Request Of The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, The Hearing Of The Appeal Is Adjourned To 17.11.2016 On The Ground That Certain

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

…of adjournment. Hence, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. 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), the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 20th June, 2017 at Chennai. (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, t…

M/S. Msx Mall Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4861/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Circle-6(1), New Delhi M/S. Msx Mall Pvt. Ltd., C/O- R.K. Tuli & Associates, Chartered Accountants, 11/37, Ground Floor, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi Pan :Aabcn8537B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…d to send the notice again and again on the same address. 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. 3. 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…

Seabird Exploration Fz Llc, Noida vs. ADIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 6129/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT/DR

…y inferred that the assessee is not serious in pursuing its appeals. In the circumstances, the only alternative left with us is to dismiss the appeals of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order 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,…

L.Rajam, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 360/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Supriyopal, JCITFor Respondent: 13.06.2017

Section 250(6)

…t filed. 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 cour…

L.Lingavan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 359/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Supriyopal, JCITFor Respondent: 13.06.2017

Section 250(6)

Sh. Parvesh Ratn, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 3146/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt Suchitra Kamble

…ed. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute this appeal. 2. 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 (Delhi)] and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], this appeal is treated as un-admitted and dismissed. 2 3. In result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09th June, 2017. (S. V. MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL ME…

Pradeep Kumar Jhawar, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xxi, Kolkata

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

ITA 1573/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2017AY 2003-2004

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

…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 June 07,…

Sanjay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1227/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2012-13 Sanjay Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, Prop. M/S Singhal Argo India, Ward-47(1), 2660-61, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aafpa0375F

For Appellant: None

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sanjay Aggarwal, Vs. ITO, Prop. M/s Singhal Argo India, Ward-47(1), 2660-61, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN: AAFPA0375F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Deptt. By : Shri Amrit Lal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 08.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 08.06.2017 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 06.01.2017 in relation to the Assessment Year 2012-13. ITA No.1227/Del/2017 2 2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no…

Sandeep Garg, Hisar vs. ITO, Hisar

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

ITA 1173/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2011-12 Sandeep Garg, Vs. Ito, Harish Bindal, Advocate, Ward-4, 946/545, Kath Mandi, Hisar. Hisar. Pan: Aefpg6390C

For Appellant: None

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sandeep Garg, Vs. ITO, Harish Bindal, Advocate, Ward-4, 946/545, Kath Mandi, Hisar. Hisar. PAN: AEFPG6390C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Deptt. By : Shri Amrit Lal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 07.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 07.06.2017 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 13.12.2016 in relation to the Assessment Year 2011-12. ITA No.1173/Del/2017 2 2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeare…

Sh. Padmanabhan Sivaram, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 2120/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: PendingITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt Suchitra Kamble

Ashok Kumar Singh, Moradabad vs. ITO, Moradabad

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

ITA 1136/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2009-10 Ashok Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, Mig 101, Ward 2(1), Ram Ganga Vihar, Moradabad. Moradabad. Pan: Aotps3061C

For Appellant: None

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ashok Kumar Singh, Vs. ITO, MIG 101, Ward 2(1), Ram Ganga Vihar, Moradabad. Moradabad. PAN: AOTPS3061C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Deptt. By : Shri Amrit Lal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 06.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 06.06.2017 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 14.12.2016 in relation to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The…

Subhash Chand, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1106/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11 Subhash Chand, Vs. Ito, House No.27, Ground Floor, Ward 34(1), Bhagwan Budha Appt., New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aappg5288D

For Appellant: None

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2010-11 Subhash Chand, Vs. ITO, House No.27, Ground Floor, Ward 34(1), Bhagwan Budha Appt., New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi. PAN: AAPPG5288D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Deptt. By : Shri Amrit Lal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 06.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 06.06.2017 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 26.10.2016 in relation to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on be…

Mr. Deepak Sethi, Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 3900/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR

…he Page 1 of 2 present Appeals are time barred by 29 days which has not been condoned by the Bench till date. 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 these appeals 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 pur…