← All Phrases

“cross objection”

AppealsSection 253(4)Section 253(4)4,331 judgments

The decision most relied on for cross objection is Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (116 Taxmann.com 701), cited in 87 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on cross objection

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

DCIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd.
378 ITR 693 · 2015 · High Court
68
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit additional grounds of appeal, especially when they are legal in nature, and allows for filing cross-objections before the Tribunal where facts are on record.

Pr. CIT v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.
86 Taxmann.com 148 · 2017 · High Court
54
citing judgments

A respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal can support the order appealed against on any grounds decided against them, even without filing a cross-objection, under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules.

Peter Vaz v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore
128 Taxmann.com 180 · 2021 · High Court
34
citing judgments

An assessee can raise an objection regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for reopening a concluded assessment even if the issue was not raised before the CIT(Appeals), by invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. This is permissible if the issue is ancillary to the main issue and does not require additional evidence.

Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT
282 ITR 321 · 2006 · High Court
31
citing judgments

An assessee-respondent can support an appellate order on any ground available to them, even if they haven't filed cross-objections, provided the new ground is a point of law and doesn't require fresh evidence.

Mavany Brothers v. CIT, Panjim
62 Taxmann.com 50 · 2015 · High Court
25
citing judgments

A delay in filing cross-objections can be condoned if there are bonafide reasons and no mala-fide conduct or lackadaisical approach by the assessee.

CIT v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
234 ITR 663 · 1998 · High Court
23
citing judgments

A cross objection filed by an assessee against an order of the CIT(A) can be considered as an appeal by the assessee.

CIT(E) v. Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria
168 Taxmann.com 35 · 2024 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) cannot invoke Section 13(1)(b) at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AB, especially when the assessee has a valid registration. Section 13(1)(b) is only attracted after the assessee has crossed the hurdle of being eligible for exemption under Section 11 by obtaining registration.

Judgments citing cross objection

DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Adventures International Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 489/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), Revenue filed appeals before us and on the other hand, assessee filed Cross- Objections before us. 5 M/s. Adventure International Pvt. Ltd. 6. Before us, ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) while passing the order has merely allowed the appeal ... International Pvt. Ltd. 27. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.489/Hyd/2024 is dismissed. C.O.Nos.5 and 6/Hyd/2024 28. Coming to Cross – Objections filed by the assessee, in view of our finding in both the appeals of Revenue, the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Adventures International Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 465/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), Revenue filed appeals before us and on the other hand, assessee filed Cross- Objections before us. 5 M/s. Adventure International Pvt. Ltd. 6. Before us, ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) while passing the order has merely allowed the appeal ... International Pvt. Ltd. 27. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.489/Hyd/2024 is dismissed. C.O.Nos.5 and 6/Hyd/2024 28. Coming to Cross – Objections filed by the assessee, in view of our finding in both the appeals of Revenue, the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Income Tax Officer, ITO vs. Impose Infratech Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 3928/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Impose Infratech Private Room No. 1423, 1St Limited, Floor, C. R. Building, I. Vs. F-301, Plot No.-3, Ashish P. Estate, Complex, Lsc New Delhi Surajmalvihar, Delhi Pan No:Aacci4760Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No. 15/Del/2024 (A.Y 2011-12) Impose Infratech Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Room No. 1423, 1St Floor, F-301, Plot No.-3, Vs. C. R. Building, I. P. Ashish Complex, Lsc Estate, Surajmalvihar, New Delhi Delhi Pan No:Aacci4760Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 153C(1)

Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 19/12/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S.: The above captioned appeal and the Cross Objection are filed by the Department and the Assessee respectively directing against the order of the 2 ITA No. 3928/Del/2023 and C.O. No. 15/Del/2024 ... Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Department of Revenue preferred the above Appeal and the Assessee has also preferred the Cross Objection in support of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the assessment order sought for allowing

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Anand Kumar Chaurasia, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and C

ITA 1481/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 ITA No.- 1481/D/2022 & C.O. No. 1/D/2024 Anand Kumar Chaurasia ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection (C.O.) by the Assessee are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi-110055, in Appeal ... order of the CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal of revenue. ITA No.- 1481/D/2022 & C.O. No. 1/D/2024 Anand Kumar Chaurasia 6. Coming to the cross objection of the assessee, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the C.O. is supportive of the order of CIT(A), and hence

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Jaipur vs. Amar Pratap Steels Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 173/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Appeal Centre [for short ‘NFAC/CIT(A)’] recorded in the order dated 29.12.2023. Against that appeal so filed by the revenue, assessee also preferred the cross objection. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2010-11. That order of the ld. CIT(A) arise because the assessee has challenged the order ... 173/JPR/2024 & CO No. 03/JP/2024 Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd. 3. Whereas against the appeal of the revenue the assessee preferred to file cross objection in CO No. 03/JPR/2024 on the following grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal

DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. Bhaijee Overseas Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and

ITA 65/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Samir Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR

Page 1 of 4 ITA & C.O. No.- 65/D/23 and 95/D/23 Bhaijee Overseas Ltd. ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection (C.O.) by the Assessee are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),-24,New Delhi-110055, in Appeal

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4050/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., Room No.91, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-30, New Delhi. 2B Grant Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal. Pan: Aabcr3491C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate & Ms Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pitambar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.320/15-16/2297 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pitambar Das, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

ground that the jurisdictional parameters prescribed under section 153C of the I.T. Act were not fulfilled, even without the necessity of filing any cross objections ?" 4.1 We find that while deciding the aforesaid question, the Hon’ble High Court analysed the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules ... Tribunal should allow the assessee to raise such an issue in the appeal instituted by the Revenue, even without the necessity of filing any cross objections. Accordingly, the ld. representatives of both the sides were heard on the legal ground. 5. On behalf of the assessee, the ld. Counsel

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 2697/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. M/S. Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Central Circle-8, 1/15, Sector-31, New Delhi Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana Pan :Aajcs1175L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.10/Del/2022 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2697/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, F-88, Okhla Indl. Area, Central Circle-8, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aajcs1175L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Sh. Deepak Malik, Adv. Department By Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 Order

Date of hearing 11.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 18.12.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 2697/Del/2017 and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 10/Del/2022 for assessment year 2011- ITA No.2697/Del/2017 & C.O. No. 10/Del/2022 12 arises against the order dated 23.02.2017 passed by Commissioner of Income ... subject to all just exceptions. 3 | P a g e ITA No.2697/Del/2017 & C.O. No. 10/Del/2022 7. Learned counsel does not press for assessee’s cross objections in light of the outcome of the Revenue’s main appeal hereinabove. This cross objection is accordingly dismissed as not pressed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Lucknow vs. Smt. Mohini Agarwal, L/H Late Mukesh Agarwal, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 170/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 68

gave partial relief to the assessee. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A) and the Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee. The grounds taken in Revenue’s appeal and the Cross Objection of the assessee are as under: I.T.A ... provide genuineness to our prayer. 6. That the Cross Objector craves the leave to add, modify, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of cross objections at the time of hearing with the permission of the honourable bench and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur vs. M/S Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 605/LKW/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 139(1)Section 32Section 801Section 801BSection 80A

Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted an application dated 17/07/2024 in which request has been made by the assessee for permission to withdraw the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. Since the appeal filed by the Revenue has been settled under VSVS-2020, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee ... become infructuous and is dismissed as withdrawan. (D) In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 17/12/2024) . . (SUBHASH MALGURIA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:17/12/2024 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemical Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 538/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

same are ITA No. 348 & 538/Ahd/2020 & CO No.9/Ahd/2021 Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemical Ltd Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– being disposed of along with Cross Objection filed by the assessee being CO No.9/Ahd/2021. ITA No. 348/Ahd/2020 – Assessee’s appeal 2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order ... Revenue is dismissed. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.12.2024 (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 17/12/2024

Gujarat State Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1)1(), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 348/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

same are ITA No. 348 & 538/Ahd/2020 & CO No.9/Ahd/2021 Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemical Ltd Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– being disposed of along with Cross Objection filed by the assessee being CO No.9/Ahd/2021. ITA No. 348/Ahd/2020 – Assessee’s appeal 2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order ... Revenue is dismissed. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.12.2024 (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 17/12/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Rajabhat Tea Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1426/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

hearing: 21.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 17.12.2024 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: In these appeals preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax ITA Nos.1010 & 1426/KOL/2024 & CO No. 30/KOL/2024 Rajabhat Tea Company; A.Ys

DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Rajahbhat Tea Company Limited, Alom House

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1010/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

hearing: 21.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 17.12.2024 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: In these appeals preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax ITA Nos.1010 & 1426/KOL/2024 & CO No. 30/KOL/2024 Rajabhat Tea Company; A.Ys

ACIT Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 458/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y. : 2018-19 C.O. No. 99/Mum/2024 : A.Y. : 2018-19 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 458/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 32

Date of Pronouncement : 17-12-2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 08-12-2023 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi and they relate to the Assessment ... issues:- (a) Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill; 2 C.O.No. 99/Mum/2024 (b) Disallowance made u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) In the Cross Objection, the assessee is contending that the disallowance worked out u/s.14A of the Act should not have been adopted for computing book profit u/s 115JB

ACIT 32 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Shubham Dynamic Real Estae Developers LLP, Mumbai

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4476/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 43C

No.4476 & CO No.276/Mum/2024 Shubham Dynamic Real Estate Developers LLP. Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated

Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram vs. The Yendagandhi Large Size Cooperative Society Limited, Yedagandi

ITA 354/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.354/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Income Tax Officer - Ward - 1 V. The Yendagandhi Large Size Cooperative Society Limited Opp. Ganesh Canteen 4-16, Kk Road, Yendagandhi J.P. Road, Bhimavaram – 534202 West Godavari District – 534186 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacat0967G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

A.Y.2020-21 arising out of order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 12.09.2022 and Cross objection is filed by the assessee in support of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 2. At the outset, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal ... revenue is dismissed. 14. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. C.O. No. 14/VIZ/2024 15. Assessee has raised following grounds in its cross objection: - 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,00,04,431 made by the assessing officer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Periyasamy Saravanan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and all the COs of

ITA 1247/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Bleshri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 153C

No.1241/Chny/2024 and C.O. No.39/Chny/2024 filed by the assessee Shri. Palaniappan Sekar for assessment year 2018-2019 for adjudication. 2. | These appeal and cross objection are arising out of the orders of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] in DIN and Order ... directed the AO to delete the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Id.CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal and the Assessee filed cross objections before us. 9. The Revenue, in its appeal ITA No.1241/CHNY/2024, challenged the relief granted by the Id.CIT(A), in the appeal filed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Ramasamy Rajesh Kumar, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and all the COs of

ITA 1245/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Bleshri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 153C

No.1241/Chny/2024 and C.O. No.39/Chny/2024 filed by the assessee Shri. Palaniappan Sekar for assessment year 2018-2019 for adjudication. 2. | These appeal and cross objection are arising out of the orders of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] in DIN and Order ... directed the AO to delete the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Id.CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal and the Assessee filed cross objections before us. 9. The Revenue, in its appeal ITA No.1241/CHNY/2024, challenged the relief granted by the Id.CIT(A), in the appeal filed

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sivasubramanian, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and all the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1243/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Bleshri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1208/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.35/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1208/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-2019. The Assistant Commissioner P. Selvaraj, Of Income Tax, Vs. 5/68,Kurumbapatty, Central Circle 2, Pavithram Po Trichy Karur 639 002. Pan: Boips 1370G Respondent/Cross Objector Appellant आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.36/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1212/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-2019. The Assistant Commissioner K.N. Prabhu, Of Income Tax, Vs. 23, Bharathi Nagar, Central Circle 2, Karur 639 002 Trichy Pan: Aczpp 6832G Appellant Respondent/Cross Objector

Section 132Section 153C

No.1241/Chny/2024 and C.O. No.39/Chny/2024 filed by the assessee Shri. Palaniappan Sekar for assessment year 2018-2019 for adjudication. 2. These appeal and cross objection are arising out of the orders of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] in DIN and Order ... directed the AO to delete the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal and the Assessee filed cross objections before us. 9. The Revenue, in its appeal ITA No.1241/CHNY/2024, challenged the relief granted by the ld.CIT(A), in the appeal filed