← 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

M/S. India Housing., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-54, Kolkata

In the result, ITA Nos 1218 & 1219/KOL/2023 are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1218/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar & Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

case. We note that the assessee has incurred management supervision charges for the purpose of business and if the expenditure is incurred Cross Objection No.l6/Kol/2015 & M/s India Housing bona fide in relation to business activity then it would be an allowable expenditure. That being so, we decline to interfere

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuddalore vs. Cholaji Kanniyalal, Kamaraj Street, Villupuram

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1674/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1674/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 51/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Cholaji Kanniyalal, Income Tax, V. No. 191, Kamaraj Street, Circle -1, Villupuram, Cuddalore – 607 002. Tamil Nadu – 605 602. [Pan: Aaepk-4555-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit Department By : Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, CA
Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 68

तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ... Ld.CIT(A), the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 20. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 28th November, 2024 at Chennai. (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एस एस िव"ने

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

ITA 458/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H.)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Naresh Kumar Gupta CIT(A)] recorded in the order dated 02.02.2024. Against that appeal so filed by the revenue, assessee also preferred the cross objection. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2014-15. That order of the ld. CIT(A) arise because the assessee has challenged the order dated ... ground of appeal during the course of appellant proceeding.” 3. Whereas against the appeal of the revenue the assessee preferred to file cross objection in CO No. 09/JPR/2024 on the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. Sanjay Singh, Noida

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

ITA 2276/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

directed against orders dated 16.05.2019 and 30.05.2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’]. The assessee filed Cross Objection (No. 84/Del/2024 arising out of ITA No. 2276/Del/2023); i.e. the penalty appeal filed by the Revenue. Since the facts of these appeals

DCIT Central Circle-I, Greater Noida vs. Sanjay Singh, Noida

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

ITA 6942/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

directed against orders dated 16.05.2019 and 30.05.2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’]. The assessee filed Cross Objection (No. 84/Del/2024 arising out of ITA No. 2276/Del/2023); i.e. the penalty appeal filed by the Revenue. Since the facts of these appeals

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department vs. Monarch Technobuild Private Limted, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 1287/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2012-13 C.O. No. 172/Mum/2024 A.Y. : 2012-13 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1287/M/24)

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68Section 69A

Date of Pronouncement : 27-11-2024 O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M : This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 25-01-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ... assessing officer that the unexplained receipt of Rs. 10 crores was liable for addition u/s. 69A.” 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in Cross Objection are reproduced as under: “1. The notice issued under section 148 is bad in law, viod-ab-initio and ultra-vires the provisions

ACIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Kamdhenu Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Acit, Circle-13(1), Vs. M/S Kamdhenu Limited, New Delhi L-311, Khasra No. 724, Street No. 7, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi – 110 037. (Pan : Aaack7155M) Co No.24/Del/2024 (In Ita No.1311/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Kamdhenu Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 13(1), L-311, Khasra No. 724, New Delhi Street No. 7, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi – 110 037 (Pan : Aaack7155M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Garg, Ca, Shri Udyan Garg, Ca, Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate Shri Harish Aggarwal, Cfo Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Order : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 145(2)Section 145(3)

Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to ‘Ld. CIT (A)’] dated 29.3.2023 and assessee has also filed cross objection for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2018 declaring total income ... Revenue are dismissed. 16. Since we have already decided the issue in favour of the assessee, we are not inclined to adjudicate cross objections filed by the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced

DCIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Oneworld Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 8295/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Jaya Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 37(1)

Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 8295/Del/2019 and the assessee’s cross objection CO No. 82/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2015- 16 arise against the CIT(A)-27, New Delhi order dated 30.08.2019 passed in case No. 505/18-19 ... tune of Rs.2,16,497/- which leaves both the parties aggrieved herein have been preferred the instant appeal as well as the cross objection raising the corresponding substantive grounds. 4. We now proceed to deal with the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Blueray Trading Pvt Ltd., Maharastra

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose, whereas the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2212/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No. 144/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Blueray Trading Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of 306, Snehdisha, Parab Wadi, Income-Tax, Highway Road, Thane, Central Circle 1(1), Maharashtra Ahmedabad Pan : Aafcm 8859 D अपीलाथ"/ "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross-Objector) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Thaker, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 68

Pronouncement: 26.11.2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal filed by the Revenue and the corresponding Cross-objection thereof filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred ... adjudicate it afresh. 20. The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 21. We shall now be dealing with the assessee’s cross objection. CO No.144/Ahd/2019 22. The assessee in its cross-objection filed before us has raised the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad

ACIT, Corporate Corporate Circle -1 (1), Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1827/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, FCA &For Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal at the instance of the Revenue and the cross objection preferred by the assessee is directed against the CIT(A)’s order dated 29.03.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income & CO No.67/CHNY/2024 ... belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The assessee’s cross objection is time barred by 42 days. The assessee has filed a petition to condone the delay accompanied by the affidavit of the Managing Director

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Sarasoule Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 180/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M Monish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 37(1)

assessee for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 16. Since the revenue appeals have been dismissed as discussed above, the Cross Objections becomes infructuous and accordingly dismissed. 17. In the combined result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, and Cross Objections are dismissed being infructuous. Order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Acb (India) Power Limited, North West Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2294/DEL/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember Dcit, Circle 1 (1), Vs. Acb (India) Power Limited, Delhi. North West Delhi, C-102, Lgf Surya Enclave, New Multan Nagar, B.O. New Multan Nagar Village, Delhi – 110 056. (Pan: Aaica7305D) Co No.68/Del/2024 (In Ita No.2294/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Acb (India) Power Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 1 (1), North West Delhi, Delhi. C-102, Lgf Surya Enclave, New Multan Nagar, B.O. New Multan Nagar Village, Delhi – 110 056. (Pan: Aaica7305D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

Order : 26.11.2024 2 CO No.68/Del/2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are filed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred ... case and allowed the appeal of the assessee. He prayed that the same may be considered and further submitted that assessee has filed cross objections in support of the findings of the ld. CIT (A). 8. Considered the rival submissions and material available on record. We observed that Assessing Officer

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Benches of Income Tax Appellate

ITA 225/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sahara India Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Corporation Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sahara India Tax, Commercial Corporation Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well. 8. We accordingly decline both the Revenue’s instant appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection(s) thereby concluding that ITAT, Delhi Benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the same, subject to a rider that the department

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Benches of Income Tax Appellate

ITA 1161/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sahara India Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Corporation Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sahara India Tax, Commercial Corporation Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well. 8. We accordingly decline both the Revenue’s instant appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection(s) thereby concluding that ITAT, Delhi Benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the same, subject to a rider that the department

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited, Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Benches of Income Tax Appellate

ITA 3329/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sahara India Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Corporation Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sahara India Tax, Commercial Corporation Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well. 8. We accordingly decline both the Revenue’s instant appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection(s) thereby concluding that ITAT, Delhi Benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the same, subject to a rider that the department

M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Benches of Income Tax Appellate

ITA 2455/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sahara India Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Corporation Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sahara India Tax, Commercial Corporation Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well. 8. We accordingly decline both the Revenue’s instant appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection(s) thereby concluding that ITAT, Delhi Benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the same, subject to a rider that the department

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corp. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Benches of Income Tax Appellate

ITA 1151/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sahara India Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Corporation Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sahara India Tax, Commercial Corporation Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well. 8. We accordingly decline both the Revenue’s instant appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection(s) thereby concluding that ITAT, Delhi Benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the same, subject to a rider that the department

M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Benches of Income Tax Appellate

ITA 1071/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sahara India Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Corporation Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2005-06 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Sahara India Tax, Commercial Corporation Ltd., Central Circle-6, Sahara India Sadan, New Delhi 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan :Aadcs6118F (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well. 8. We accordingly decline both the Revenue’s instant appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection(s) thereby concluding that ITAT, Delhi Benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the same, subject to a rider that the department

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Uk Paints India Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the 03 Revenue’s appeals as well as 03 Assessee’s

ITA 3083/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

192A, 19, DDA COMMERCIAL FIRST FLOOR, COMPLEX, KAILASH COLONY, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI – 110 048 NEW DELHI – 2 (PAN: AAACU0057C) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 93, 94 & 95/DEL/2024 (IN ITA NOS. 3081, 3082 & 3083/DEL/2024 A.YRS. : 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ... Singh, CIT-DR Assessee by Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CA CO NOS. 93 TO 95/DEL/2024 ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the Assessee are directed against the separate impugned orders all dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi in relation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Uk Paints India Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the 03 Revenue’s appeals as well as 03 Assessee’s

ITA 3082/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

192A, 19, DDA COMMERCIAL FIRST FLOOR, COMPLEX, KAILASH COLONY, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI – 110 048 NEW DELHI – 2 (PAN: AAACU0057C) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 93, 94 & 95/DEL/2024 (IN ITA NOS. 3081, 3082 & 3083/DEL/2024 A.YRS. : 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ... Singh, CIT-DR Assessee by Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CA CO NOS. 93 TO 95/DEL/2024 ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the Assessee are directed against the separate impugned orders all dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi in relation