← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1437/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1437/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 46/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Cholamandalam Ms Of Income Tax, V. General Insurance Company Non-Corporate Circle -8, Limited, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, No.2, Dare House, Chenai Annexe Building, G.P.O., Parrys, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai - 600 001. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-6633-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Kamakshi, Advocate For Mr. Sandeepbagmar, Advocate Department By : Mr.Nilaybaransom, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Aredirected Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.03.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) In

For Appellant: Ms. Kamakshi, Advocate forFor Respondent: Mr.NilayBaranSom, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

Hearing : 09.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee aredirected against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated ... leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed off. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of Cross objections: “The cross objections stated herein are without prejudice to each other. Issue 1-Jurisdiction for reopening assessment 1. The order of the Learned Assessing

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. In the aforesaid appeal, the Assessee has filed cross objections. 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- I. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(iii) a. Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. In the aforesaid appeal, the Assessee has filed cross objections. 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- I. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(iii) a. Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. In the aforesaid appeal, the Assessee has filed cross objections. 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- I. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(iii) a. Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Poosarla Satyavathi, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 117/VIZ/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The above captioned appeals and cross objections are relating to assessees of same group / family, therefore for the sake of convenience all these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed ... allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 117/VIZ/2021 (A.Y. 2014 -15) (Revenue Appeal) & C.O. No. 13/VIZ/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15)(Assessee Appeal) 25. This appeal and cross objection are filed by revenue and assessee respectively, against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)– 3, Visakhapatnam [hereinafter in short

Linton Projects Private Limited, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in limine and Cross objection filed is assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 227/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The above captioned appeals and cross objections are relating to assessees of same group / family, therefore for the sake of convenience all these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed ... allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 117/VIZ/2021 (A.Y. 2014 -15) (Revenue Appeal) & C.O. No. 13/VIZ/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15)(Assessee Appeal) 25. This appeal and cross objection are filed by revenue and assessee respectively, against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)– 3, Visakhapatnam [hereinafter in short

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 724/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Antony Motors Pvt. Income-Tax- 15(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.517, A-390/391, 5Th Floor, Midc, Ttc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Zone, Maharshi Karve Road, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aaaca4719K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

payments were made by account payee cheque. v. by disregarding the fact that the appellant had already shown GP of 17- 20%. General: This cross objection is filed in time. The cross objection prays leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of cross objection on or before ... disposal of this cross objection.” M/s. Antony Motors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 722- 724/M/2016 CO No. 150.-152/M/2017 Brief facts for AY 2009-10 are as under: 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing repairing, servicing of body of motor chases and engineering products, training

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 723/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Antony Motors Pvt. Income-Tax- 15(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.517, A-390/391, 5Th Floor, Midc, Ttc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Zone, Maharshi Karve Road, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aaaca4719K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

payments were made by account payee cheque. v. by disregarding the fact that the appellant had already shown GP of 17- 20%. General: This cross objection is filed in time. The cross objection prays leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of cross objection on or before ... disposal of this cross objection.” M/s. Antony Motors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 722- 724/M/2016 CO No. 150.-152/M/2017 Brief facts for AY 2009-10 are as under: 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing repairing, servicing of body of motor chases and engineering products, training

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Antony Motors P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee & revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 722/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Antony Motors Pvt. Income-Tax- 15(1)(1) Ltd. Room No.517, A-390/391, 5Th Floor, Midc, Ttc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Zone, Maharshi Karve Road, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aaaca4719K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

payments were made by account payee cheque. v. by disregarding the fact that the appellant had already shown GP of 17- 20%. General: This cross objection is filed in time. The cross objection prays leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of cross objection on or before ... disposal of this cross objection.” M/s. Antony Motors Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 722- 724/M/2016 CO No. 150.-152/M/2017 Brief facts for AY 2009-10 are as under: 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing repairing, servicing of body of motor chases and engineering products, training

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Indofil Industries Ltd., Andheri East, Mumbai

ITA 3005/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40a

Prakash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 28/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 30/10/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S.,JM: This present appeal as well as the Cross Objection are preferred by the Department and the Assessee respectively by 2 ITA No. 3005 and C.O No.145/Del/2023 DCIT Vs. Indofil Industries Ltd. challenging the order ... exceptions mentioned in the Circular No. 05/2024 issued by the CBDT. 7. Since we have dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue the Cross Objection No. 145/Del/2023 is also dismissed as having become in-fructuous. Order pronounced in open Court on 30th October, 2024 (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated

Asstt. CIT Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Zain Alam, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 237/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 13 2. All the assessees have preferred cross-objections. 3. Since the issue involved in all the five appeals preferred by the Revenue are common, the facts are being taken from ITA No.233/LKW/2022 in the case ... other more grounds of appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may earliest. 8. Similarly, the assessees have filed cross objections in the above appeals only supporting the orders of the ld. CIT(A). The common grounds of appeal raised by the assessees are as under

Asstt.CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Zaina Fatima Ahmad, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 236/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 13 2. All the assessees have preferred cross-objections. 3. Since the issue involved in all the five appeals preferred by the Revenue are common, the facts are being taken from ITA No.233/LKW/2022 in the case ... other more grounds of appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may earliest. 8. Similarly, the assessees have filed cross objections in the above appeals only supporting the orders of the ld. CIT(A). The common grounds of appeal raised by the assessees are as under

Asstt.CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Shaheen Rabia, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 235/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 13 2. All the assessees have preferred cross-objections. 3. Since the issue involved in all the five appeals preferred by the Revenue are common, the facts are being taken from ITA No.233/LKW/2022 in the case ... other more grounds of appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may earliest. 8. Similarly, the assessees have filed cross objections in the above appeals only supporting the orders of the ld. CIT(A). The common grounds of appeal raised by the assessees are as under

Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Mehtab Alam, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 234/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 13 2. All the assessees have preferred cross-objections. 3. Since the issue involved in all the five appeals preferred by the Revenue are common, the facts are being taken from ITA No.233/LKW/2022 in the case ... other more grounds of appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may earliest. 8. Similarly, the assessees have filed cross objections in the above appeals only supporting the orders of the ld. CIT(A). The common grounds of appeal raised by the assessees are as under

Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur vs. Tabrez Alam, Kanpur

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 233/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 13 2. All the assessees have preferred cross-objections. 3. Since the issue involved in all the five appeals preferred by the Revenue are common, the facts are being taken from ITA No.233/LKW/2022 in the case ... other more grounds of appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may earliest. 8. Similarly, the assessees have filed cross objections in the above appeals only supporting the orders of the ld. CIT(A). The common grounds of appeal raised by the assessees are as under

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. Ci Hospitality Worldwide Private Limited, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed and Cross

ITA 449/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 253(3)

Revenue against the impugned appellate order dated 21/09/2020 for assessment year 2017-18 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee. The grounds taken in Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s Cross Objection filed by the assessee ... Revenue and assessee have agitated against the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). While Revenue has filed the appeal, the assessee has filed Cross Objection. There is substantial reduction in assessee’s income as a result of order of learned CIT(A); but the assessee is dissatisfied with reduction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Capital First Limited(Merged With Idfc First Bank Limited), Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1692/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1692/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 63/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No. 1692/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Capital First Limited (Merged With Income Tax, Idfc Bank Limited), Kpm Tower, 7Th Floor, No. 1, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle 11, Chennai. Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. [Pan:Aacck6863C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In The Revenue’S Appeal & The Cross Objections Of The Assessee Are Similar & Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Since, the issues raised in the Revenue’s appeal and the Cross Objections of the assessee are similar and based on the same identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear ... appeal 2 I.T.A. No.1692/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 63/Chny/24 and Cross Objections together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 24 days. The Appellant-Revenue filed an affidavit stating reasons for the said delay. On perusal

DCIT-CC 5(3), Mumbai vs. Indiafirst Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross

ITA 3825/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-Cc-5(3), Indiafirst Life Insurance Company Room No. 426, Kautilya Bhavan, Ltd., Vs. Bkc Road, 12Th & 13Th Floor, Building No. 4, Mumbai-400051. Nesco It Park Western Express Highway Goregaon E, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aadcb 6215 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Farrokh V. Irani
Section 10Section 44

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue and cross This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the assessee are directed against order dated 08.05.2024 passed ... raised by the assessee in its cross The grounds raised by the assessee in its cross The grounds raised by the assessee in its cross-objection are reproduced as under: reproduced as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, IndiaFirst On the facts and circumstances

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hdfc Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2716/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit – 1(1)(1) 597, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai Maharashtra–400020……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 144Section 250Section 28Section 44

/10/2024 ITA No. 2716/Mum/2023 & C.O. 22/Mum/2024 2 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee have been filed against the impugned order dated 09/06/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income ... result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. C.O No. 22/Mum/2024 20. Since the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and therefore is dismissed. 21. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Anilkumar Jagdishraj Seth, Mumbai

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

ITA 3378/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit, Anil Kumar Jagdishraj Seth, 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Flat No. 1201, Jeevan Satya Co-Op. Vs. Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Housing Society, 15Th Road, Plot No. Mumbai-400012. 411, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aobps 8150 E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue and cross This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the assessee are directed against order dated 30.04.2024 passed ... borne and paid by expenses, legal charges etc. were to be borne and paid by the purchaser only? the purchaser only? 2.1 The cross-objection objections raised by the assessee are reproduced as the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. (a) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action