← 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

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4557/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A/RsFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT D/R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80

Ground No. 1 to 5 raised by the Revenue in the appeal are dismissed. Since we have dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue, the cross objections raised by the I.T.A. No. 4557/Mum/2024 8 Assessee are dismissed as not pressed in view of instructions received by the Learned Authorized Representative. Accordingly ... appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the Assessee are dismissed.” 8. As no distinguishing decision has been brought to our notice, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, Ground Nos. 1 to 5 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 6 relates

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 698/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

other legal issues raised by the ld AR as they would be purely academic in nature and hence they are left open. Accordingly , the cross objections raised by the assessee are allowed in view of the abovementioned terms. 10. Further we find that the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 642/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

other legal issues raised by the ld AR as they would be purely academic in nature and hence they are left open. Accordingly , the cross objections raised by the assessee are allowed in view of the abovementioned terms. 10. Further we find that the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 641/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

other legal issues raised by the ld AR as they would be purely academic in nature and hence they are left open. Accordingly , the cross objections raised by the assessee are allowed in view of the abovementioned terms. 10. Further we find that the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 622/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

other legal issues raised by the ld AR as they would be purely academic in nature and hence they are left open. Accordingly , the cross objections raised by the assessee are allowed in view of the abovementioned terms. 10. Further we find that the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court

The DCIT, Circle (International Taxation), Chandigarh vs. Sh. Manjeet Singh, Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed whereas, Cross

ITA 512/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs. Shri Manjeet Singh, बनाम Circle (International S/O Shri Harbir Singh Taxation), # 1460, Ward Number-8, Chandigarh Gahlewal, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 13/Chd/2022 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Manjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम S/O Shri Harbir Singh Circle (International # 1460, Ward Number-8, Taxation ), Gahlewal, Chandigarh Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at any time or before hearing of the appeal. In this case, there is a Cross Objection, i.e., C.O. No. 3. 13/Chd/2022 filed by the Assessee. Grounds taken by the Assessee in his Cross Objection are as under:- 1. That ... appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 4. From the records, we find that there is a delay of 57 days in filing the Cross Objections by the Assessee. During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed a letter dated February 4, 2023 giving reasons

ACIT, Ncrb Building Jaipur vs. Mahima Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

ITA 668/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 250Section 271A

issue in favour of the assessee by dismissing the appeal of the revenue, we do not feel to adjudicate the ground raised in the cross objection. Hence the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection

DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Anjani Kumar Goenka, New Delhi

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 790/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2011-12 Dcit, Cirlce-10(1), Anjani Kumar Goenka, C.R. Building, Vs. N-86, Connaught Place, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 1 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aagpg6344M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 6Section 69

under appeal are considered in light of the above discussion, it becomes clear that the provisions of section 292B are not applicable. In the cross objections the AO wants us to treat us the assessment completed u/s.148 as assessment finalised u/s. 153 A of the Act. In our opinion, both

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru vs. Kirloskar Electronic Company Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO preferred by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1127/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Circle - 4(3)(1), No.5555, Malleshwaram West, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 055. Pan : Aabck 2721 Q Appellant Respondent Co No.27/Bang/2024 (In Ita No. 1127/Bang/2024) Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Bangalore – 560 055. Circle - 4(3)(1), Pan : Aabck 2721 Q Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sachin Mehta, Ca Department By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Cross Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 19.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. Co No.27/Bang/2024 (In Ita No. 1127/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri. Sachin Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 250

Pronouncement : 14.10.2024 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President : This appeal at the instance of the Revenue and the Cross Objection (CO) preferred by the assessee are directed against CIT(A)’s Order dated 19.07.2023 passed under section 250 of the Act. The relevant Assessment Year

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Ashok Jasraj Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3839/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Ashok Jasraj Jain आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the cross objection has been filed by the assessee against order dated 01/05/2024 passed by ld. CIT(A)-54, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143 ... while balance sheet of this group company has capital of Rs 24,41,033/- only?" 3. Where as in the cross objection assessee has challenged the validity of reopening u/s.147. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 28/09/2011 declaring total income

Assistant Commissiner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Tata Teleservices Limited, Delhi

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

ITA 2759/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumaracit, Vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd, 124, 10Th Floor, Jeevan Bharati Delhi Tower-I, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact2438A Co No. 82/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 2759/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Tata Teleservices Ltd, Vs. Acit, 124, 10Th Floor, Jeevan Delhi Bharati Tower-I, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact2438A Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Shri Divyanshu Singla, Ca Shri Prateek Chauhan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2024 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: 1. The Appeal In Ita No.2759/Del/2024 For Ay 2007-08, Arises Out Of The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Nfac‟, In Short] In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1063789663(1) Dated 31.03.2024 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 30.03.2018 By The Assessing Officer, Acit, Circle-25(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟).

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer, ACIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The only issue to be decided in the cross objection of the assessee is as to whether the concealment penalty could be levied u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act when ... delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act . Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objection are allowed. 6. In view of the aforesaid decision in cross objection of the assessee, the grounds raised by the revenue in its main appeal becomes academic

DCIT, Circle-2, Durgapur vs. Kalyan Educational Society, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the 18

ITA 1176/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur ………. Appellant Vs. Kalyan Educational Society ………… Respondent 13, Dum Dum Cossipore Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700074. (Pan: Aabtk2860K) & C.O. No. 03/Kol/2024 In I.T.A. No.1176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kalyan Educational Society ………… Cross Objector Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur ……….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Revenue Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Appeared For Assessee/Cross Objector. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 10.10.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Are Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Date of pronouncing the order : 10.10.2024 ORDER Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member: The appeal filed at the instance of the revenue and the Cross Objection filed at the instance of the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2017-18 are directed against the order passed ... such additions would not qualify within the classification- things which come to the notice as per Explanation 3 to Section 147.” 3.1. Grounds for Cross Objection raised by the assessee read as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation ) Ward Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Coimbatore

ITA 1614/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1613 & 1614/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Vs. 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) C.O No. 68/Chny/2024 (Arises In Ita No. 1614/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By The Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore. Vs. (International Taxation), (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 & 10.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 :- 2 -:

Section 143(3)

68/Chny/2024 PER JAGADISH, A.M : आदेश / ORDER Aforesaid two appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19 & 2019-20 and Cross Objections filed by the assessee for A.Y 2019-20 arises out of the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation) Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Coimbatore

ITA 1613/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1613 & 1614/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, Vs. 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) C.O No. 68/Chny/2024 (Arises In Ita No. 1614/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Devakalaianandan Balasubramanian, 24, Satchidananda, Jothi Nikedhan Kallar Post, Mettupalayam – 641 305. [Pan: Aghpb 8473F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 & 10.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 :- 2 -:

For Respondent: Shri Aakash Uppal, C.A
Section 143(3)

68/Chny/2024 PER JAGADISH, A.M : आदेश / ORDER Aforesaid two appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19 & 2019-20 and Cross Objections filed by the assessee for A.Y 2019-20 arises out of the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated

Mohammed Shuaib, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1399/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahur Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Shuaib, Vs. Ito, No.1, A Street, Coles Road Cross Ward – 1(2)(1), Frazer Town, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 005. Pan : Avzps 8507 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha R, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 250

only academic and is rendered infructuous. In the event the Revenue files an appeal, assessee shall be at liberty to file cross appeal / cross objection if he is so advised. It is ordered accordingly. Page 3 of 3 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 268/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Bksps2554L Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Viz/2024 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Siva Jyothi Palam, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Bksps2554L Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

08/04/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2017-18. The Cross Objection is filed by the assessee. Since the appeal of the Revenue and the CO raised by the assessee are interconnected, these two appeals ... Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No. 04/Viz/2024 (AY 2017-18) (By Assessee) 10. This Cross Objection is raised by the assessee and the grounds of cross objections revolve around supporting the decision of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. While adjudicating

Income Tax Officer, Bibikulam Madurai vs. D N Public Charitable Trust, Arasaradi Madurai Tamil Nadu

In the result, Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1304/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, JCIT
Section 1Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)Section 147

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1302 to 1304/Chny/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.1 to 3/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 v. The ITO (Exemptions Ward), M/s.D.N. Public Charitable – Bibikulam, Trust, Madurai ... Nos.1 to 3/Chny/2024 (AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.D.N. Public Charitable Trust :: 2 :: to 2016-17 and CO Nos.1 to 3/Chny/2024 are the Cross-Objections filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17. 2. Both sides agreed that since the facts/issues are similar/identical, the appeal

Income Tax Officer, Bibikulam Madurai vs. D N Public Charitable Trust, Arasaradi Madurai Tamil Nadu

ITA 1303/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1302 To 1304/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.1 To 3/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2016-17 The Ito (Exemptions Ward), Bibikulam, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S.D.N. Public Charitable 13, Theni Main Road, Arasaradi, Madurai-625 016. [Pan: Aaatd 9013 C] Trust, (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Jcit : Mr. Arjun Raj, Advocate 22.08.2024 : 09.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

Section 1Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)Section 147

MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1302 to 1304/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.1 to 3/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 The ITO (Exemptions Ward), Bibikulam, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) v. M/s.D.N. Public Charitable ... Delhi, all dated 22.09.2023 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter in short `AYs') 2014-15 to 2016-17 and CO Nos.1 to 3/Chny/2024 are the Cross-Objections filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17. 2. Both sides agreed that since the facts/issues are similar/identical, the appeal

Income Tax Officer, Bibikulam Madurai vs. D N Public Charitable Trust, Arasaradi Madurai Tamil Nadu

ITA 1302/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1302 To 1304/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.1 To 3/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2016-17 The Ito (Exemptions Ward), Bibikulam, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S.D.N. Public Charitable 13, Theni Main Road, Arasaradi, Madurai-625 016. [Pan: Aaatd 9013 C] Trust, (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Jcit : Mr. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 22.08.2024 : 09.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

Section 1Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)

MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1302 to 1304/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.1 to 3/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 The ITO (Exemptions Ward), Bibikulam, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) v. M/s.D.N. Public Charitable ... Delhi, all dated 22.09.2023 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter in short `AYs') 2014-15 to 2016-17 and CO Nos.1 to 3/Chny/2024 are the Cross-Objections filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17. 2. Both sides agreed that since the facts/issues are similar/identical, the appeal

ACIT-3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities and Power Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4452/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Pronouncement Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR Ms. Moksha Mehta, AR 07.10.2024 09.10.2024 ORDER Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short