“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

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 1001/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

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 1000/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Section 148A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Infinite Computer Solutions (India) Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and all the cross-

ITA 2217/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148

115/Mum/2024 Infinite Computer Solutions (India) Limited Α.Υ. 2013-14 to 2015-16 All these three appeals of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are based on similar fact and identical issue therefore for the sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated together by taking ... this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No. 113 /M/2024 C.O. No. 114/M/2024 C.O. No. 115/M/2024 15. Assessee have filed the cross objection for the A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2015-16 on the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. Since we have dismissed all the three

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Infinite Computer Solutions (India) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and all the cross- objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2010/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi a/w Ms. Ritu PunjabiFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT/DR & Shri H.M

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148

115/Mum/2024 Infinite Computer Solutions (India) Limited A.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-16 All these three appeals of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are based on similar fact and identical issue therefore for the sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated together by taking ITA No. 2010/M/2024 ... this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No. 113 /M/2024 C.O. No. 114/M/2024 C.O. No. 115/M/2024 15. Assessee have filed the cross objection for the A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2015-16 on the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. Since we have dismissed all the three

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Infinite Computer Solutions (India) Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and all the cross- objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2005/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi a/w Ms. Ritu PunjabiFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT/DR & Shri H.M

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148

DCIT (TDS) - 1(1), Mumbai, Cumballa Hills vs. Anand Rathi Commodities Limited, A Wing, Th Floor

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3919/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 2(28)Section 201

Date of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee against order dated 11/08/2023 passed by ld. CIT (A)-53, Mumbai in relation to the order passed ... concluded that the transactions were rightly held as financial transactions by the Ld. AO. Against this finding Assessee Company has filed cross objections. 13. However, ld. CIT (A) accepted the submissions of the assessee that assessee being broker earning brokerage income from the transaction entered on behalf of the clients

DCIT (TDS) - 1(1), Mumbai, Cumballa Hills vs. Ananad Rathi Commodities Limited, A Wing, Th Floor

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3900/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 2(28)Section 201

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Incredible India Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 604/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.604 & 605/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Acit Vs. Incredible India Projects Central Circle-2(4) Private Limited Hyderabad Secunderabad [Pan : Aabci9355A] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 19/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024 आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Both Dated 30/08/2022, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(9)(d)Section 271ASection 274

proposed to initiate penalty proceedings under relevant sections. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that though the assessee has not filed appeal or cross objection on above issue 6 before the Tribunal, yet it is entitled to raise this issue in terms of Rule 27 of ITAT Rules ... other judicial precedents and submitted that, it was open to a respondent in appeal, who had not filed a cross objection with regard to the portion of the decree or order which had gone against him to urge in opposition to the appellant. Since the assessee has raised the issue

DCIT 1 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 6913/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 80HSection 80I

Hearing : | 21-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : | 14-11-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The cross appeals b y the parties and the cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 30-08-2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai ... interfere with the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on Transfer Pricing issues urged before us. 16. We shall now take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The Ld A.R submitted that the Cross Objection will be relevant only if the Hon’ble Tribunal allows the appeal

Hindusthan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Range 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 6783/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 80HSection 80I

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Svam Software Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year 2013-

ITA 334/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mritunjay Prasad Dwivedi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 153C

Date of pronouncement 14/11/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: These are the appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objection 1. filed by the revenue in ITA Nos. 333 & 334/Del/2024 and CO Nos. 64 & 65/Del/2024 for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 arises ... they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. We find that assessee in its cross objections for assessment year 2013-14 vide ground No. 12 had raised specifically that in the instant case material found during the course

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Svam Software Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year 2013-

ITA 333/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mritunjay Prasad Dwivedi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 153C

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara vs. Kapilkumar Amarchand Agrawal, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1489/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 250Section 68

Agrawal vs. ITO Date of hearing : 13-11-2024 Date of pronouncement : 13-11-2024 आदेश/ORDER This appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, in proceeding

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and all the three C

ITA 2395/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2367, 2368 & 2395/Chny/2018 िनधा?रण वष? /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Premanand, CIT

Income Tax, Vs. No.367/369, Anna Arivalayam, Non Corporate Circle-20(1), Teynampet, Chennai-600018. Chennai. [PAN: AADCK 0898E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.124, 125 & 126/Chny/2018 (Arises in ITA Nos.2367, 2368 & 2395/Chny/2018) िनधा?रण वष? /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Kalaignar ... घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid three appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections (C.Os) filed by the assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) ITA Nos.2367, 2368 & 2395/Chny/2018 & CO NOs.124, 125 & 126/Chny/2018

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are partly

ITA 2368/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat. 3.3 The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Addition Was Made On The Basis Of The Charge Sheet Filed By The Cbi Based On The Facts Findings By The Cbi

Since, we have already decided the appeals filed by the Revenue, and arguments in C.O considered, the cross objections filed by the assessee have become infructuous. Hence, the C.Os filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous. ITA Nos.2367, 2368 & 2395/Chny/2018 & CO NOS. 124, 125 & 126/Chny/2018

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and all the three C

ITA 2367/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2367, 2368 & 2395/Chny/2018 िनधा?रण वष? /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Premanand, CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-16, Delhi vs. Kohli Tent House, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal being ITA No

ITA 2931/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CA & Shri P.KFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu

Section 132Section 153C

void ab initio and cannot be sustained. Therefore, placing reliance on the above mentioned judicial precedents, we quash the impugned assessment order. Accordingly, the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed. 6.3 Since, we have allowed the Cross Objection of the assessee and have quashed the assessment, the appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-16, Delhi vs. Kohli Tent House, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal being ITA No

ITA 2930/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CA & Shri P.KFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu

Section 132Section 153C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-16, Delhi vs. Kohli Tent House, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal being ITA No

ITA 2929/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CA & Shri P.KFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu

Section 132Section 153C

ACIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Shalimar Lakecity Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 9104/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. The issue raised by the Ld. Counsel has not been raised through Cross Objection, Cross Appeal or under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. We, therefore, do not find fit to decide this issue, being academic in nature