← 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

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. N K Proteins Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 339/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43(5)

order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” 4.1. The Grounds of Cross Objection filed by the assessee are as under:- “1. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case ... appellate order passed by the Ld CIT[A] does not require any interference and the Revenue appeal is liable to be dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is to be allowed. 7. We have heard rival submissions at length and also considered the materials placed on record

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Rajuri Steel and Tmt Bars Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1298/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1298/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rajuri Steel & Tmt Aurangabad. Bars Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.F-16-17 & Gut No.49, 51 & 52, Additional Midc, Phase- Ii, Daregaon, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aaics2970E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.32/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1298/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajuri Steel & Tmt Bars Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. Plot No.F-16-17 & Gut No.49, 51 & 52, Additional Midc, Phase-Ii, Daregaon, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aaics2970E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Assessee By : Shri B. D. Bhide Date Of Hearing 05.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune [‘Ld. Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Shri B. D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

passed by LD. CIT(A)-12, Pune [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] 2 C.O. No.32/PUN/2024 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee is also in cross objection bearing Cross Objection No.32/PUN/2024. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company filed its original ... Revenue is allowed & matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo 10 C.O. No.32/PUN/2024 reassessment afresh, therefore, present cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous. Therefore, cross objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 10. To sum up, the appeal filed

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Madikeri vs. Govindappa Jayaram Doddaiah, Madapura, Kodagu

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1356/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. H.D. Thejaswini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 54

light of principles of justice and cancel the addition/disallowances made by Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals).” 4. The assessee also filed a Cross Objection to the appeal filed by the revenue in which the revenue had challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) with the following grounds of cross objection ... based on the occupation certificate issued by the authorities and therefore the value arrived by the assessee is in order. The assessee also filed cross objection in which he objects the appeal filed by the revenue. The Ld.AR also draw our attention Page

Govindappa Jayaram Doddiah (HUF), Kodagu vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseen Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. H.D. Thejaswini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 54

light of principles of justice and cancel the addition/disallowances made by Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals).” 4. The assessee also filed a Cross Objection to the appeal filed by the revenue in which the revenue had challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) with the following grounds of cross objection ... based on the occupation certificate issued by the authorities and therefore the value arrived by the assessee is in order. The assessee also filed cross objection in which he objects the appeal filed by the revenue. The Ld.AR also draw our attention Page

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Amarpreet Anand, Chandigarh

ITA 1040/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Vs. Amarpreet Anand Central Circle-1, 1155, Sector-34C, Chandigarh, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Sector-33, Noida, Pan No.Abzpa4892Q Uttar Pradesh. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No.63/Del/2023 (In Ita No.1040/Del/2022) (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) Amarpreet Anand Vs. Acit, 1155, Sector-34C, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Sector-33, Noida, Pan No.Abzpa4892Q Uttar Pradesh. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Vipin Garg, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.11.2024 O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am:

Anand Central Circle-1, 1155, Sector-34C, Chandigarh, Income Tax Office, 2nd Floor, ARTO Complex, Sector-33, Noida, PAN No.ABZPA4892Q Uttar Pradesh. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & Cross Objection No.63/Del/2023 (In ITA No.1040/Del/2022) (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) Amarpreet Anand Vs. ACIT, 1155, Sector-34C, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh, Income Tax Office, 2nd Floor ... certain property and found in the search action under s. 69A of the Act was reversed and cancelled. 3. The Assessee, as per its cross objection, has also assailed the first appellate order on account of certain enhancements made therein. The grounds of cross objections are reproduced hereunder: - 1. “Because

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumabi vs. Mohammed Ali Ebrahim Gheewala, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1503/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

Date of Pronouncement : 11-11-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The Revenue has filed two appeals and the assessee has filed one Cross objection challenging the orders passed by Ld.CIT(A). All of them are related to Assessment Year (AY.) 2011-12. The appeal of Revenue numbered ... order of the Ld.CIT(A) passed against the re-assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The assessee has filed Cross Objection challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. 2. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The original assessment in the hands

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Lalbaug vs. Mohammed Ali Ebrahim Gheewala, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1487/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

Date of Pronouncement : 11-11-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The Revenue has filed two appeals and the assessee has filed one Cross objection challenging the orders passed by Ld.CIT(A). All of them are related to Assessment Year (AY.) 2011-12. The appeal of Revenue numbered ... order of the Ld.CIT(A) passed against the re-assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The assessee has filed Cross Objection challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. 2. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The original assessment in the hands

Income Tax Officer, Kalyan vs. Ritu Manish Pokar, Dombivli

In the result, the appeal of the Department, ITA No

ITA 2797/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

appellant is correct and the Department appeal is dismissed as not maintainable due to monetary limits. C.O. 12/Mum/2024 3. The above cross objection was filed by the appellant for A.Y. 2016-17 and the sole ground taken is “the addition of Rs. 23,17,000/- made to total income under ... held that the addition is valid and legal as the provisions of law were correctly applied. 6. As mentioned above, the appellant filed Cross objection before the ITAT, and it was stated that the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is incorrect

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2325/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These Cross Appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax C.O No. 98 , 100 to 102/Mum/2023 ... statistical purposes. 22. In result the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. C.O No.98/Mum/2023 – Assessee's for AY2015-16 23. The cross objections raised by the assessee are against the appeal filed by the revenue. In view of our findings given with regard to the appeal filed

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2287/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These Cross Appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax C.O No. 98 , 100 to 102/Mum/2023 ... statistical purposes. 22. In result the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. C.O No.98/Mum/2023 – Assessee's for AY2015-16 23. The cross objections raised by the assessee are against the appeal filed by the revenue. In view of our findings given with regard to the appeal filed

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2163/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These Cross Appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax C.O No. 98 , 100 to 102/Mum/2023 ... statistical purposes. 22. In result the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. C.O No.98/Mum/2023 – Assessee's for AY2015-16 23. The cross objections raised by the assessee are against the appeal filed by the revenue. In view of our findings given with regard to the appeal filed

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2162/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These Cross Appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax C.O No. 98 , 100 to 102/Mum/2023 ... statistical purposes. 22. In result the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. C.O No.98/Mum/2023 – Assessee's for AY2015-16 23. The cross objections raised by the assessee are against the appeal filed by the revenue. In view of our findings given with regard to the appeal filed

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2161/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These Cross Appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax C.O No. 98 , 100 to 102/Mum/2023 ... statistical purposes. 22. In result the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. C.O No.98/Mum/2023 – Assessee's for AY2015-16 23. The cross objections raised by the assessee are against the appeal filed by the revenue. In view of our findings given with regard to the appeal filed

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2160/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These Cross Appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax C.O No. 98 , 100 to 102/Mum/2023 ... statistical purposes. 22. In result the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. C.O No.98/Mum/2023 – Assessee's for AY2015-16 23. The cross objections raised by the assessee are against the appeal filed by the revenue. In view of our findings given with regard to the appeal filed

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2) (Ershtwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1956/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These Cross Appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax C.O No. 98 , 100 to 102/Mum/2023 ... statistical purposes. 22. In result the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. C.O No.98/Mum/2023 – Assessee's for AY2015-16 23. The cross objections raised by the assessee are against the appeal filed by the revenue. In view of our findings given with regard to the appeal filed

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2) (Ershtwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1955/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These Cross Appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax C.O No. 98 , 100 to 102/Mum/2023 ... statistical purposes. 22. In result the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. C.O No.98/Mum/2023 – Assessee's for AY2015-16 23. The cross objections raised by the assessee are against the appeal filed by the revenue. In view of our findings given with regard to the appeal filed

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2) (Ershtwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1954/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These Cross Appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax C.O No. 98 , 100 to 102/Mum/2023 ... statistical purposes. 22. In result the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. C.O No.98/Mum/2023 – Assessee's for AY2015-16 23. The cross objections raised by the assessee are against the appeal filed by the revenue. In view of our findings given with regard to the appeal filed

Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2) (Ershtwhile Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 of the assessee, revenue, and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1953/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 32(1)

Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These Cross Appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax C.O No. 98 , 100 to 102/Mum/2023 ... statistical purposes. 22. In result the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. C.O No.98/Mum/2023 – Assessee's for AY2015-16 23. The cross objections raised by the assessee are against the appeal filed by the revenue. In view of our findings given with regard to the appeal filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Vaishali Aggarwal, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as

ITA 507/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CIT(A) &For Respondent: Shri K.Mehboob Ali Khan,CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeals by the Revenue and the corresponding Cross Objections have been filed by the assessees against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A). Since facts and issues involved in all the captioned ... Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 15.11.2017 in Scott Edil group of cases. 3. The Revenue’s appeal in alongwith corresponding Cross Objection of the assessee ITA Nos. 501 to 504, 507 to 509/CHD/2023 & C.O.Nos. 10 to 13, 18 to 20/CHD/2024. 3 C.O.No. 10/CHD/2024 are taken

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as

ITA 501/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CIT(A) &For Respondent: Shri K.Mehboob Ali Khan,CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeals by the Revenue and the corresponding Cross Objections have been filed by the assessees against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A). Since facts and issues involved in all the captioned ... Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 15.11.2017 in Scott Edil group of cases. 3. The Revenue’s appeal in alongwith corresponding Cross Objection of the assessee ITA Nos. 501 to 504, 507 to 509/CHD/2023 & C.O.Nos. 10 to 13, 18 to 20/CHD/2024. 3 C.O.No. 10/CHD/2024 are taken