← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Sellappagounder Ramasamy Karthic, Karur

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

ITA 1242/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. Palaniappan Sekar, Karur

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

ITA 1241/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. K.N.Prabhu, Karur

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

ITA 1212/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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. P.Selvaraj, Karur

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

ITA 1208/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, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Sony India Software Centre Pvt Ltd, Bellandur, Bangalore

ITA 1550/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 28Section 40a

ground nos. 2 to 4 are dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No.1550/Bang/2024 is dismissed. 24. Coming to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee wherein ground no.2 is in relation to assets received on returnable basis and ground no.3 is related to disallowance

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Spark Gems, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3617/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

whole premise and basis to acquire jurisdiction was vague and wrong assumption of facts. Since assessee had not filed any cross appeal or cross objection against the order of Ld. CIT (A) and we also tried to enquire from there was no such appeal for A.Y.2012-13 against this order. Though

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Spark Gems, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2012-13
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

whole premise and basis to acquire jurisdiction was vague and wrong assumption of facts. Since assessee had not filed any cross appeal or cross objection against the order of Ld. CIT (A) and we also tried to enquire from there was no such appeal for A.Y.2012-13 against this order. Though

Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Nagpur vs. Ggf Mercantile Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross–objection are dismissed in terms indicated above

ITA 415/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 153C

Salunke Date of Hearing – 04/12/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. Aforesaid appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are against the impugned order dated 31/10/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned ... Assessing Officer, whereas, the Revenue has filed its appeal before the ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, and the assessee has also filed its cross–objection before the ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, and consequent upon, the question arose on the maintainability of the Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross–objection filed

ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Satty and Associates, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.162 & 163/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19) Satty & Associates Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.236/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Hyd/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Hyd/2022) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S Rama Rao, Ar (Appeared Through Virtual Mode)& Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 12/12/2024 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 153A

निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner of Satty and Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [PAN : AAWFS8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Hyd/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.236/Hyd/2022) Assistant Commissioner of Satty and Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [PAN : AAWFS8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent ... Income Tax (Appeals)-11 [Learned CIT(A)] dated 10.03.2022 and pertains to A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 and 2018-19. The assessee had also filed cross objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue for the A.Y.2016-17. Since the facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these

Satty and Associates, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.162 & 163/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19) Satty & Associates Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.236/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Hyd/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Hyd/2022) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S Rama Rao, Ar (Appeared Through Virtual Mode)& Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 12/12/2024 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 153A

निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner of Satty and Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [PAN : AAWFS8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Hyd/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.236/Hyd/2022) Assistant Commissioner of Satty and Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [PAN : AAWFS8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent ... Income Tax (Appeals)-11 [Learned CIT(A)] dated 10.03.2022 and pertains to A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 and 2018-19. The assessee had also filed cross objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue for the A.Y.2016-17. Since the facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these

Satty and Associates, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.162 & 163/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19) Satty & Associates Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.236/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Hyd/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Hyd/2022) Assistant Commissioner Of Satty & Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan : Aawfs8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S Rama Rao, Ar (Appeared Through Virtual Mode)& Ms.S.Sandhya, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 12/12/2024 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 153A

निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner of Satty and Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [PAN : AAWFS8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Hyd/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.236/Hyd/2022) Assistant Commissioner of Satty and Associates Hyderabad Income Tax [PAN : AAWFS8350D] Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent ... Income Tax (Appeals)-11 [Learned CIT(A)] dated 10.03.2022 and pertains to A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 and 2018-19. The assessee had also filed cross objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue for the A.Y.2016-17. Since the facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these

ACIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bombay Footwear Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji and Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 45Section 50D

Pronouncement of order : 12.12.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue and Cross- Objection preferred by the Assessee are directed against the ITA No.94/Mum/2024 & C.O. No.139/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 order, dated 20/11/2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal ... find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Cross Objection No.139/Mum/2024 16. Since, we have sustained the order passed by the CIT(A), the Cross Objection raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Absolute Projects (India) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, both the Appeal and the Cross Objection filed by the

ITA 89/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Absolute Projects Income Tax, (India) Ltd. Circle-1(1), Room No. 153A, Vs. 4222/1, Laxmi Jung, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 1St Floor, Ansari Road, New Delhi Darya Ganj, Delhi Pan No:Aabca0783G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No. 54/Del/2024 (A.Y 2017-18 In Ita No. 89/Del/2024) Absolute Projects (India) Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax, 4222/1, Laxmi Jung, 1St Vs. Circle-1(1), Room No. Floor, Ansari Road, Darya 153A, C. R. Building, I. Ganj, Delhi P. Estate, New Delhi Pan No:Aabca0783G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manu Gawri, Ca & Sh. Rajiv Kr. Gawri, Ca Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80

Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 10/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 12/12/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S. The above captioned appeal and the Cross Objection are filed by the Department and the Assessee respectively aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 13/11/2023 for Assessment Year ... forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 2.1 The Assessee’s grounds of Cross Objection are as under:- “1. The action of the Learned AO in increasing the NP rate from 4.16% reported in the consolidated financial statements

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Krishan Kant Kohli, New Delhi

ITA 5733/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 132ASection 153A

Assessment Year 2011-12 CO Nos. 196 & 197/Del/2018 ACIT Vs. Krishan Kant Kohli and 2012-13. The Assessee has also preferred the respective Cross Objections by supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for both the Assessment Years. 2. The Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the Appeals ... contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the order of the Lower Authorities, sought for allowing the Appeals and prayed for dismissal of the Cross Objections filed by the Assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In both the years under consideration

ACIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon vs. Krishan Kant Kohli, New Delhi

ITA 5732/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 132ASection 153A

Assessment Year 2011-12 CO Nos. 196 & 197/Del/2018 ACIT Vs. Krishan Kant Kohli and 2012-13. The Assessee has also preferred the respective Cross Objections by supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for both the Assessment Years. 2. The Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the Appeals ... contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the order of the Lower Authorities, sought for allowing the Appeals and prayed for dismissal of the Cross Objections filed by the Assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In both the years under consideration

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S Prag Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

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

ITA 660/LKW/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 40A(2)

appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid direction, and the appeal is dismissed. (I) Now, we come to the cross objection filed by the assessee, in which the following grounds have been taken:- “1. BECAUSE the ld."CIT(A)" has grossly erred in law in holding ... case.” (I.1) Further the assessee has also annexed enclosure to the grounds of appeal which are as under: Enclosure-1(a) to Grounds of Cross Objection 1. Union of India Vs. Sheo Shanker Sitaram reported in (1974) 95 ITR 523. "It has not been disputed before us that assessment proceedings

Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Natesan Sabesan, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2018

ITA 974/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 132

Sabesan :: 2 :: आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross objections These appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross objections These appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross objections raised by the assessee ... appeals of the Revenue and Ground No. 1 d No. 1 of both the appeals of the Revenue and Ground No. 1 of the cross objections of the assessee are general in nature and of the cross objections of the assessee are general in nature and of the cross objections

Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Natesan Sabesan, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2018

ITA 973/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh
Section 132

Sabesan :: 2 :: आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross objections These appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross objections These appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross objections raised by the assessee ... appeals of the Revenue and Ground No. 1 d No. 1 of both the appeals of the Revenue and Ground No. 1 of the cross objections of the assessee are general in nature and of the cross objections of the assessee are general in nature and of the cross objections

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Subhash Tyagi Prop. M/S Krishana Construction, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

ITA 1342/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Sh.Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

1342/D/2021 against the impugned order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2016-17 in question. The assessee, in turn, has also filed Cross Objection [CO 59/D/2021] in the Revenue’s Appeal under Section 253(4) of the Act. 2. All the captioned Appeals and Cross Objection being inter- connected, were ... heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No.1044/Del/2021 (Assessee’s Appeal) & Cross objection 59/Del/2023 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a proprietor of ‘M/s Krishna Constructions’ and is engaged in the business of construction and related activities. A search and seizure operation under Section

Shri Subhash Tyagi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Sh.Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

1342/D/2021 against the impugned order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2016-17 in question. The assessee, in turn, has also filed Cross Objection [CO 59/D/2021] in the Revenue’s Appeal under Section 253(4) of the Act. 2. All the captioned Appeals and Cross Objection being inter- connected, were ... heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No.1044/Del/2021 (Assessee’s Appeal) & Cross objection 59/Del/2023 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a proprietor of ‘M/s Krishna Constructions’ and is engaged in the business of construction and related activities. A search and seizure operation under Section