“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

M/S Metal Impex, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 802/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

held to be unsustainable for want of jurisdiction and is therefore is quashed. The assessee thus succeeds on this ground raised in the cross objections and the same is allowed.” ITA Nos.799 to 805/Chny/2024 (AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 to 2020-21) M/s. Metal Impex

M/S Metal Impex, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 801/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

M/S Metal Impex, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 800/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

M/S Metal Impex, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 799/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, (a) all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed, (b) Cross Objection 1 (1

ITA 3372/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153

Date Conclusion of hearing : 19.08.2024 Pronouncement of order : 30.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. These are two sets of appeals and cross objections pertaining to Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. Since the appeals/cross ITA No. 3373 & 3372/Mum/2023 C.O. No. 26 & 27/Mum/2024 Assessment Year ... 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. 2.1. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. Navratan Vidha Mandir Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

ITA 201/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 145(3)

NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC/CIT(A) ] for the assessment year 2012- 13 and Assessee has also filed the Cross objection to the appeal so filed by the revenue against the same order of the ld. CIT(A). 2. The grounds of appeal raised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Man Prakash Talkies Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed,

ITA 407/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) &

Section 147

RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM FN iit ve Min Man Prakash Talis Pvt Lut There are two appeals filed by the revenue and two cross objections filed by the assessee because they are aggrieved from the two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-01, Jaipur [ for short ... passed on 25.01.2018. The dispute in these appeals and cross objections relates to the above-named assessee for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10. The Id. CIT(A) has passed that order because the assessee was aggrieved from the order of assessment made in their case for these years

Deputy Commisisoner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S. Man Praksh Talkies Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed,

ITA 406/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) &

Section 147

DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Michael Page International Recruitment Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3090/MUM/2023[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, CA andFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274

Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024 ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The appeal filed by the revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi, vide No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053355719(1),dated 31.05.2023 passed ... order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 2.1. Grounds of cross-objection taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry vs. L V Beach City Property Promoters, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 254/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 254/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Asst. Cit – Central Circle – 2 V. L.V. Beach City Property Promoters 40-25-19/A, Balaji Towers 5Th Floor, Shiva Towers Kogantivari Street, Patamatalanka Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry-533103 Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfl5214D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 3/Viz/2024 [आयकअपीलसं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.254/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19)] L.V. Beach City Property Promoters V. Asst. Cit – Central Circle – 2 40-25-19/A, Balaji Towers 5Th Floor, Shiva Towers Kogantivari Street, Patamatalanka Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry-533103 Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfl5214D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri M.V. Prasad, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

254/VIZ/2024 & C.O. No. 3/VIZ/2024 L.V. Beach City Property Promoters आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal and cross objection are filed by revenue and assessee 1. respectively, against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT ... Page No. 13 I.T.A. No. 254/VIZ/2024 & C.O. No. 3/VIZ/2024 L.V. Beach City Property Promoters C.O. No. 03/VIZ/2024 18. Since the grounds raised in the cross objection are supportive to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and since the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed by quashing the assessment

ACIT, Kozhikode vs. K K Mohandas, Peravoor

ITA 701/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None ------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153BSection 153B(1)(a)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 250

Hearing: 14.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Revenue’s appeal ITA No.701/Coch/2023 along with assessee’s cross objection CO No.1/Coch/2024 therein, for A.Y. 2013-14, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053769985(1) dated ... main appeal ITA.No.701/Coch/2023 fail accordingly in these facts and circumstances. 4 ITA 701 & CO 1/Coch/2023/24 K.K. Mohandas 5. The assessee’s cross objection CO No.1/Coch/2024 is dismissed as infructuous. 6. To sum-up, this Revenue’s appeal ITA.No.701/Coch./2023 is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection C.O.No.1/Coch

The ITO Ward-2(1), Trivandrum vs. Peroorkada Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Trivandrum

The appeal is Allowed

ITA 306/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.A. Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 80P

Hearing: 12.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 306/Coch/2023 with assessee’s cross objection CO No. 3/Coch/2023 for AY 2016-17 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20232- 23/1050071382(1) dated ... income eligible for deduction going by the CBDT Circular No. 37/16. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 306/Coch/2023 fails therefore. 4. The assessee’s cross objection No. 3/Coch/2023 is found to be supportive of the CIT(A)’s findings deleting the interest expenses and the same stands rendered infructuous

DCIT, Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. S. Elambharathi, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cos

ITA 221/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

आदेश/ORDER : : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 28.08.2024 25.09.2024 PER BENCH: Both the appeals and the Cross Objections filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively are directed against the common order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... assessment year 2017-18 also. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. C.O. Nos. 7 & 8/Chny/2022 11. Issues raised in both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee become academic in view of our decision in confirming the order of the Id. CIT(A) in deleting the addition

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. Shri S. Elembharathi, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cos filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 220/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.220 & 221/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 & C.O. Nos. 7 & 8/Chny/2022 [In Ita Nos. 220 & 221/Chny/2022] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri S. Elambharathi, Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (4), Flat No. 5, Ground Floor, 364, Room No. B6, Investigation Building, Kurupam Court, Lloyds Road, No. 46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 086. Chennai 34. [Pan: Aacpe3945N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: Both The Appeals & The Cross Objections Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 28.01.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 3Section 68

Date of hearing : 28.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH: Both the appeals and the Cross Objections filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively are directed against the common order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income ... assessment year 2017-18 also. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. C.O. Nos. 7 & 8/Chny/2022 11. Issues raised in both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee become academic in view of our decision in confirming the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition

ACIT 3(3)(1) Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result ground nos

ITA 2961/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

Date of hearing : 10/09/2024 Date of pronouncement : 24/09/2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: Instant appeals of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee were filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section ... assessee, allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, the revenue has filed appeals before us, and the assessee has filed cross objections before the bench. 6. The ld.DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the assessment order. The Ld.DR has placed that the assessee is following ‘project completion

ACIT 3 (3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result ground nos

ITA 2960/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

No.2961/Mum/2024 ITA No.2960/Mum/2024 C.O. No. 166/Mum/2024 C.O. No. 167/Mum/2024 Siroya Developers Pvt Ltd ORDER PER BENCH: Instant appeals of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee were filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)'] passed under section ... assessee, allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, the revenue has filed appeals before us, and the assessee has filed cross objections before the bench. 6. The Id.DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the assessment order. The Ld.DR has placed that the assessee is following ‘project completion

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Om Land Reality Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1572/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1572/Ahd/2019 With C.O No.24/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 The Dcit, M/S. Om Land Reality Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(1)(2), बनाम 302, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Ahmedabad. Abhiship Complex Nr. Keshav Baug Party Plot, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaaco9406D ( ""यथ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Dr Assessee By : Ms Amoli Gusani, Ar

For Appellant: Ms Amoli Gusani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 45Section 68

matter of assessment order passed under s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") and Cross Objection With C.O No.24/Ahd/2022 Asst. Year 2014-15 2 No.24/Ahd/2022 was filed by the assessee relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue ... correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 63.61.066/-on account of brought forward losses. 3. The assesee has raised the following grounds of Cross Objections. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act to the extent

ACIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati vs. Ponnambalam Krishnan, Chittoor

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 655/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.655/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ponnambalam Krishnan, Tax, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Vs. Ekjambarakuppam, Chittoor, A.P. Pan : Bedpk5641B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 (Assessment Year:2017-18) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 10/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की रीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala,SR-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 40Section 68

Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)] with DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064747749(1) dated 09.05.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has also filed cross objections maked as C.O Number-11/Hyd/2024. 2 C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds: “ (1) The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate ... file of Assessing Officer for examining afresh in accordance with law. This will take care of ground number-1 of the the Cross Objections filed by the assessee. 20. Coming to the next ground i.e. deletion of Rs.23,57,500/- on account of cash deposit during demonetisation period. We observed

ACIT 14(I)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Properties Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3880/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal1. Ita No. 3880/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri P. Suresh, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Jeet Kamdar, Ld. AR

Section 14ASection 250

respectively. For the sake of clarity and better understanding of the matter, we are taking departmental appeal first and then will deal with cross objection of the assessee accordingly. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Utv Software Communications Pvt Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 2944/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nehaar Ranjan Pandey, D.R

Section 250Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92C

Department before the Hon’ble Tribunal against the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the then Ld. CIT(A), challenged the aforesaid addition by filing cross objection before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 7. The Hon’ble Tribunal in ITA No.948/M/2020 and CO No.127/M/2021 decided on 15.11.2021 remanded the main ground related