Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 8920 (2.37 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. on 27 May, 1991

Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd Through Dipak ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) on 16 February, 2021

However, reliance of the Tribunal on the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (supra) is erroneous and, Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 23:20:26 IST 2022 C/SCA/7163/2019 ORDER therefore, requires to be set aside. In the instant case, it can be noted from the letters addressed by the present appellant to the Tribunal that it was awaiting transfer of both the appeals of 199899 and 19992000 since CIT (Appeals) had relied upon such orders of earlier years."
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Dolphin Metal (India) Ltd Through Dipak ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) on 16 February, 2021

However, reliance of the Tribunal on the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (supra) is erroneous and, Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 18 03:23:57 IST 2021 C/SCA/7163/2019 ORDER therefore, requires to be set aside. In the instant case, it can be noted from the letters addressed by the present appellant to the Tribunal that it was awaiting transfer of both the appeals of 199899 and 19992000 since CIT (Appeals) had relied upon such orders of earlier years."
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Sri. Vikram Shetty,Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), ... on 20 May, 2025

17. On the merits of the case, we find that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee not on the merits of the case, but holding that the assessee is not willing to prosecute the appeal and applied the decision of the CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. On carefully looking at the provisions of section 250(6), the ITA No.2170/Bang/2024 Page 17 of 19 CIT(Appeals) has to decide the appeal on its own merits. According to section 251 in an appeal against the order of assessment, he has to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment by giving the detailed reason. He cannot short-circuit the appeal of the assessee and dismiss it for want of prosecution. Even this allegation of the ld. CIT(A) also does not hold water for the reason that all the notices issued by him were responded to by the assessee. Thus dismissing appeal of the assessee by the ld. CIT (A) is not in accordance with the law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Shree Dattakrupa Builders & ... vs Income-Tax Officer,, on 9 December, 2016

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is violation of principles of natural justice in not providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and in deciding the appeal ex parte or applying the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the matter needs to be re - adjudicated by the CIT(A) after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, this matter is sent back to the file of CIT(A), who 4 ITA No. 2092/PN/2016 M/s. Shree Dattakrupa Builders & Developers shall decide the same de novo. The CIT(A) has decided the issue on merits also, but in the absence of any representation by the assessee, the order of Assessing Officer has been upheld. The ends of justice demand that the assessee be allowed an opportunity to put its case. Hence, the assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) and furnish the requisite documents in support of its contentions. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed for statistical purposes. The other ground of appeal becomes academic since the matter being set aside to the file of CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Village Antique & Ethinic, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 6 March, 2017

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant as not maintainable in view of rule 19 and 20 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 ?"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Manohars Catering , Bengaluru vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), ... on 13 September, 2024

3. In view of the same I am of the opinion that the appellant is not interested in pursuing its appeal. The law aids those who are vigilant and those who sleep upon/over their rights. This principle is embodied n well known dictum vigilantibus non Dormantibus Jura Subveniunt which has been followed in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 by the Hon'ble ITAT. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhutani Builders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Assessee on 22 October, 2010

7. A careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as rival submissions made before us and on perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) clearly shows violation of the express provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which provides that the appellate authority is bound to state the points and grounds arising in the appeal and the decision thereon with the reasons for such decision. The underlying rationale of the said provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the Tribunal, therefore speaking and well- reasoned order would obviously enable a party to know the precise points decided in his favour or against him. From the impugned order, we observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) did not adhere to the letter and spirit of the statutory provisions and dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution and also on merits by holding that non-availability of any 8 ITA No.5555/Del/2012 Asstt.Year: 2006-07 submission and evidence in support to the ground raised by the assessee in the appeal. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the absence of the formulation of the points for decision for want of clarity in a decision undoubtedly puts the party in dilemma. From Section 250(6) of the Act, it is clear that this statutory provision expressly embodies the principle of natural justice and such a provision is also mandatory in nature. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in violation of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act cannot be sustained. Regarding the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs B.N. Bhattachargee and another (supra) and the judgment of ITAT Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (supra), we find that the benefit of the ratio of the said decision is not available to the revenue as said decisions are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case since section 254 of the Act referring to the order of the Tribunal confers plenary jurisdiction on the Tribunal in the matter of passing orders u/s 254(1) of the Act and there is no such express stipulation in section 254 as contained under the provisions of section 250(6) relating to the orders of first appellate authority i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Therefore, we respectfully hold that reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the legal propositions is entirely 9 ITA No.5555/Del/2012 Asstt.Year: 2006-07 misplaced and not acceptable as per scheme of the statutory provisions of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rayang Timber Products (P) Ltd. on 8 February, 2002

3. The original order was written by the learned A.M. According to him the case of the assesses is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). In the memorandum of appeal filed by the Revenue the copies of grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority and two copies of statement of facts as required under Rule 9(1) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 were not included.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next