“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, Delhi vs. U K Paints (India) Private Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 3081/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

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

DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Src Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1316/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1310 & 1316/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

CO.147/Del/2022 DCIT, Cc-31 Vs. M/s SRC Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. O R D E R PER BENCH: The present appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-30, arising out of the Assessment Order ... exceptions provided to the Circular noted above. 5. In view of the appeals being dismissed due to low tax effect the Cross Objections in respect of the same appeals is found to be erroneous and hence, dismissed as infructous. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.11.2024 (Brajesh Kumar Singh

DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Pyramid Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1314/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1313 & 1314/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

1314/Del/2021 C.O. 145 & 146/Del/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: The present appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-30, arising out of the Assessment Order for A.Y. 2013-14 & 2016-17 u/s 153A ... exceptions provided to the Circular noted above. 5. In view of the appeals being dismissed due to low tax effect the Cross Objections in respect of the same appeals is found to be erroneous and hence, dismissed as infructous. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.11.2024 (Brajesh Kumar Singh

DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Pyramid Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1313/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1313 & 1314/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Src Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1310/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1310 & 1316/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Src Realtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1309/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1308 & 1309/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

DCIT, CC-31 Vs. M/s SRC Realtech Pvt. Ltd. O R D E R PER BENCH: The present appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-30, arising out of the Assessment Order ... exceptions provided to the Circular noted above. 5. In view of the appeals being dismissed due to low tax effect the Cross Objections in respect of the same appeals is found to be erroneous and hence, dismissed as infructous. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.11.2024 (Brajesh Kumar Singh

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Src Realtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn, hence, dismissed

ITA 1308/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumit Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No.1308 & 1309/Del/2021 (A.Y 2013-14 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT

Section 153A

DCIT CC 3.4, Mumbai vs. Gsp Impex Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and also the cross objections appeal by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3465/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19 Co No.147/M/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3465/M/2024) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Gsp Impex Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle 11 Vikas Park, Jalpankhi Chs 3(4), Room No. 413, 4Th Floor, Ltd, Juhu Tara Road Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai Mumbai – 400049, – 400051, Maharashtra Maharashtra Pan: Aaccg8149F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jay Bhansali, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar:

For Appellant: Shri Jay Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 68

Credence Commodities Exports, without appreciating the fact that genuineness of transaction is not proved by Credence.” 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of Cross-objections:- “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer ... pressed by the Ld. AR of the assessee and therefore, stand dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and also the cross objections appeal by the assessee are hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/11/2024. BEENA PILLAI PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्यायिक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार

ACIT, Cenral Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Rajesh Kaushik, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8530/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh.S Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Central Circle -20 Vs. Rajesh Kaushik Ara Centre-269A, 460/1A,Street No 17 F-2Jhandewalan, Shahdara Vishwas Nagar New Delhi Delhi Pan No.Alnpk4140R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)

order dated 19-08-2019 allowed the appeal against which the revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also filed the cross objection in the appeal. 5. The ld. DR has relied upon the order of the assessing officer and submitted that addition made by AO was deleted ... appeal has no force and liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Cross objection No. 01/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17) 11. The Ld. AR has submitted that a valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not served upon the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Blue Moon Housing and Development Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the Cross

ITA 4949/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Umesha Chandra Sinha

Section 68

Sinha Date of Hearing : 13-11-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21-11-2024 ORDER PER BENCH : The appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi and they relate to Assessment Years ... addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) in both the years under consideration. In the cross objections, the assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment of both the years under consideration. 2. We heard the parties and perused the record.The

Income-Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Blue Moon Housing and Development Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the Cross

ITA 4902/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Umesha Chandra Sinha

Section 68

ACIT, CC-13, New Delhi vs. Amit Jain, New Delhi

ITA 1953/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 1520/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sh. Amit Jain Vs Acit C-215, Block-C, Vivek Vihar, Central Circle-13, New Delhi-110095 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepj3625J

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 69Section 69A

Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s and Revenue’s cross appeals ITA No. 1520/Del/2020 and ITA No. 1953/Del/2021; alongwith the assessee’s cross objection CO No. 31/Del/2022 therein; for A.Y. 2017-18 arise against the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi order 2 CO No. 31/Del/2022 Amit Jain dated ... Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 1953/Del/2021 fails in very terms. 8. Learned counsel submits that he no more wishes to press for assessee’s cross objection CO No.31/Del/2022 once we have upheld the CIT(A) foregoing lower appellate findings. Ordered accordingly. 9. No other ground or argument has been raised

Amit Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi

ITA 1520/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 69Section 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. South Calcutta Diesels Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1392/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 153ASection 68

Year: 2019-20 South Calcutta Diesels Pvt. Ltd. ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the revenue and the cross-objection preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred ... deleting of addition of Rs. 90 Lacs which was made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act whereas the assessee has filed cross objection in support of order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before the Bench that

Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1), Kol, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin vs. Shyamasree Ghosh, Kolkata

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

ITA 1177/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Date of pronouncing the order :November 20, 2024 आदेश / ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member : The captioned appeal by the revenue and the corresponding Cross Objection by the assessee have been preferred against the order dated 15.09.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred ... deleting the addition on merits, whereas, the assessee has filed the captioned I.T.A. No.1177 /Kol/2023 & CO No. 02/Kol/2024 Shyamasree Ghosh, AY. 2018-19 Cross Objection contesting the validity of the reopening of the assessment. 6. At the request of the parties, the legal issue relating to the validity

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai vs. Vmobo Mobile Private Limited, Chennai

In the result the appeal filed by the appellant revenue vide ITA no 1868 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the appellant assesse vide CO number

ITA 1868/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1868/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: G.Mahesh, C.AFor Respondent: R.Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 37(1)Section 46A

Through the aforesaid appeal the revenue has contested the order of Ld. CIT(A) with reference to the relief accorded. The assesse has filed cross objections supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A). The principal controversy in the revenue’s appeal revolves around the relief of Rs.2

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 823/LKW/2005[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 1994-95 Vs. Sahara India Ltd, Acit, Central Circle-1, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.29/Lkw/2006 [Arising Out Of Ita No.823/Lkw/2005 Assessment Year: 1994-95 Sahara India Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Central Circle-1, Aliganj, Lucknow Lucknow Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Dinesh Verma, Adv. Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Ar Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2024 Order

Section 144

Akhtar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 14.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 20.11.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal with assessee’s cross objections ITA No. 823/Lkw/2005 and CO No. 29/Lkw/2006 for assessment year ITA No.823/Lkw/2005 & C.O. No. 29/Lkw/2006 1994-97, arises against the Commissioner of Income ... detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well. 7. 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, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Financial Corp. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 566/LKW/2002[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 1997-98 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sahara India Financial Central Circle-1, Corporation, Lucknow Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow. Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No. 87/Lkw/2005 [Arising Out Of Ita No.566/Lkw/2002] Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Sahara India Financial Vs. Dcit, Corporation, Central Circle-1, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow. Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. Arpit Goel, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal With Assessee’S Cross Objections Ita No. 566/Lkw/2002 & Co No. 87/Lkw/2005 For Assessment Year

Section 144

Akhtar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 14.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 20.11.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal with assessee’s cross objections ITA No. 566/Lkw/2002 and CO No. 87/Lkw/2005 for assessment year ITA No.566/Lkw/2002 & C.O. No. 87/Lkw/2005 1997-98, arises against the Commissioner of Income ... detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well. 7. 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, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 999/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

BENCH: This is a batch of 8 appeals comprising 4 appeals (ITA Nos. 981, 999, 1000 & 1001/Kol/2024) filed by the Department and 4 Cross Objections (CO Nos. 10, 11, 12 & 13/Kol/2024) filed by the assessee, mainly to support the findings of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short ... assessee. 4. In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed. 5. Regarding the Cross Objections filed by the appellant, it is noticed that they were merely in support of the action of Ld. CIT(A) and did not call

ACIT, Circle -34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 981/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Section 148A