“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1374/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)Section 80G

Appellant Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Wing A Glenmark House HDO Corporate Building, B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400099. [PAN AAACG2207L] …………. Respondent & Cross Objection No. 33/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited Wing A Glenmark House HDO Corporate Building, B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai ... Date Conclusion of hearing : 30.08.2024 Pronouncement of order : 06.09.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal and cross-objection arise from order, dated 24/01/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre ITA No. 1374/MUM/2024 & CO 33/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 574/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Us, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee against order dated 16/10/2006 passed by CIT(A) XXVII, Mumbai in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.271 ... penalty levied on disallowance of Rs.17,70,92,101/- is deleted. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Accordingly, the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is allowed. 11 ITA No.574/Mum/2007 & CO No.120/Mum/2007 M/s. Bajaj Holdings and Investment Ltd., 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bharat Broadband Network Limited, Kidwai Nagar East, Delhi

ITA 3259/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Circle 4(2) Vs. Bharat Broadband Room No. 384, C.R. Network Limited, Building I.P. Estate, New 3Rd Floor, East Kidwai Delhi, Delhi – 110002 Nagar, Nbcc, Office Block 1, Kidwai Nagar East, South West, Delhi Delhi - 110023

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sujit Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

Hearing 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 06.09.2024 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by revenue and a Cross Objection against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 21.09.2023 whereby and whereunder the order of assessment has been confirmed. In fact such reopening ... evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may chose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes. P a g e | 9 ITA No.3259/Del/2023 & CO. No.168/Del/2023 DCIT,Circle 4(2) VS. Bharat

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Lucknow dated 10.11.2016 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has also filed Cross Objection. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are as under: ITA No.66/LKW/2017 & C.O. No.19/lkw/2017 Page 2 of 27 1. On the facts ... appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may arise. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection are as under: 1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) -3, Lucknow has grossly

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statue Circle Jaipur vs. Vasudev Hemrajani, Arjun Nagar, Jaipur

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 634/JPR/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Appeals) enhanced the flat rate from 10% to 12.5%. 23 ITO vs. Vasudev Hemrajani The revenue filed an appeal whereas the respondent filed cross-objections before the Tribunal. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and accepted the cross-objections filed ... assessee by holding as follows: "9. As far as ground taken by the assessee in his cross objection regarding the application of rate of 12.5% by the CIT(A) against the rate of 10% applied by the A.O. concerned, in our opinion, looking into the facts that the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maneckji Cooper Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection

ITA 3554/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit (Exemption)-2(1), Maneckji Cooper Education Trust, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Telephone Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz (W), Vs. Exchange Building, Dr. Gd Mumbai-400049. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatm 0173 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs. Mahita Nair, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jay Bhansali

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148

Revenue by : 29/08/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 05/09/2024 ORDER PER BR BASKARAN, AM The appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 14-05-2024 passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and they relate ... same, we uphold the order passed by Ld CIT(A). phold the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 7. The assessee has filed cross objection, wherein it has challenged the The assessee has filed cross objection, wherein it has challenged the The assessee has filed cross objection, wherein

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication, Lucknow

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections

ITA 2618/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2617/Del/2013 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1998-99 बनाम Dcit Sahara India Mass Communication, Central Circle-6, Vs. 1, Kapoorthala Complex, New Delhi. Aliganj, Lucknow. Pan No.Aajfs8722L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2618/Del/2013 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 बनाम Dcit Sahara India Mass Communication, Central Circle-6, Vs. 1, Kapoorthala Complex, New Delhi. Aliganj, Lucknow. Pan No.Aajfs8722L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2619/Del/2013 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000 बनाम Dcit Sahara India Mass Communication, Central Circle-6, Vs. 1, Kapoorthala Complex, New Delhi. Aliganj, Lucknow. Pan No.Aajfs8722L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4122/Del/2012 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 बनाम Dcit Sahara India Mass Communication, Central Circle-6, Vs. 1, Kapoorthala Complex, New Delhi. Aliganj, Lucknow. Pan No.Aajfs8722L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

बनाम DCIT Sahara India Mass Communication, Central Circle-6, Vs. 1, Kapoorthala Complex, New Delhi. Aliganj, Lucknow. PAN No.AAJFS8722L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 197/Del/2013 (In I.T.A No.4122/Del/2012) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 बनाम Sahara India Mass Communication, DCIT 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Vs. Central Circle-6, Aliganj ... Lucknow. New Delhi. PAN No.AAJFS8722L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No. 198/Del/2013 (In I.T.A No.4123/Del/2012) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2001-02 बनाम Sahara India Mass Communication, DCIT 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Vs. Central Circle-6, Aliganj, Lucknow. New Delhi. PAN No.AAJFS8722L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication, Lucknow

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections

ITA 2617/DEL/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2024AY 1998-99

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(2), Nagpur vs. Ajay Vishandas Kamnani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DemleFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

terms of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, he submitted that net profit be estimated @ 3% only though he has not filed any cross objection. 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. We find ... time of hearing, the learned A.R. submitted that upon instructions from his client, he does not want to press the grounds for cross objection. Accordingly, cross objection is dismissed. 25. In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/09/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur vs. M/S. Gupta Metallics & Power Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 91/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 132Section 132(4)

dated 14/03/2022, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)– 3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11 and the cross objection has been filed by the assessee which arose out of the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2010–11. M/s. Gupta ... dismissed. C.O. no.2/Nag./2022 (Arising out of Revenue’s Appeal being ITA no.91/Nag./2022 Assessment Year – 2010–11 16. The assessee has filed its cross objection in support of the appeal filed by the Revenue, which we have dismissed. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3488/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

Ronak Doshi a/w Mr. Priyank Gala Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR 21/08/2024 30/08/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM The captioned appeal and cross-objection filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively are directed against order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ... excess claims / losses etc. Hence the penalty order passed by the AO is justified in each and every way. 2.1 The assessee has raised cross-objections which are reproduced as under: CROSS-OBJECTION I: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Assessing Officer

ACIT (E), Lucknow vs. Shiv Ram Das Guliti Memorial Society, Allahabad

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

ITA 9/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit (Exemptions) Shiv Ram Das Gulati V. T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, U.P.S.I.D.C Memorial Society Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti 53, Leader Road, Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Allahabad, Up Pan:Aabts4990G (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 05/Lkw/2022 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 09/Lkw/2020) Assessment Year:. 2014-15 Shiv Ram Das Gulati V. Acit (Exemptions) Memorial Society T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, 53, Leader Road, Allahabad, U.P.S.I.D.C Ltd, Vibhuti Up. Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aabts4990G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Manish Kumar Deorah, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 08 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar Deorah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12A

pronouncement: 29 08 2024 O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: This is an appeal preferred by the revenue and the cross- objection (CO) preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. ACIT(E), Lucknow dated 30.10.2019 relating to the AY 2014- 15. The grounds ... allow the amounting to Rs.95,191/- in accordance to law. C.O. No. 05/LKW/2022 (for AY. 2014-15) 6. Now, we take up the cross objection of the assessee i.e. C.O. No.05/LKW/2022 for the AY. 2014-15. The cross-objections are time barred by 987 days. The assessee has filed application

Brij Bihari Agrawal, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

copy of combined order dated 26-09-2022 of Hon'ble ITAT in ITA Nos. 152, 161, 164, 165/JP 2020 and other ITAs and Cross Objections. One of the main grounds for the relief in the order is that the addition was done on protective basis and he substantive addition ... search. Further the Hon'ble ITAT in the order relied upon by the appellant had not given relief or direction on the issue of cross objections. In view of the discussion, the objection of the appellant regarding cross objection is dismissed. In view of the above, the grounds of appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Nsl Sugars Limited, Museum Road

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 907/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri T. Gandhi, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 41

Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: This appeal filed by the revenue and Cross objection by assessee are against order of CIT(A)-15, Bangalore dated 29.2.2024 in respect of the assessment year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts ... order of ld. CIT(A) is not correct. 4. The ld. A.R. at the time of arguments, filed a paper book consisting of cross objections in form No.36A, the waiver of loans income ledger extract, ledger copy of crop loan, non-operating income

Income-Tax Officer-20(3)(1), Piramal Chamber vs. Sameer Mahesh Sachde, Kutchi Lohana Niwas

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2180/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Dabade, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 69C

revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 09.02.2023. Since the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesse are based on identical facts on similar issue, therefore, for the sake of convenience both these appeals are adjudicated together ... reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A) accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. The assessee in the cross-objection has stated that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition @ 10% amounting to Rs. 4,78,092/-. In this regard the assessee has referred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Companies Co-Op. Society Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 4233/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 23(1)(a)

Hearing 29/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement 29/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee against order dated 27/09/2023 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16. M/s. Laxmi ... mutandis in this appeal also. M/s. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Company Co-operative Society Ltd., CO No.125/Mum/2024 & 126/Mum/2024: Before us ld. AR submitted that Cross Objections have not been pressed. Therefore, the same are dismissed as infructous. 12. In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections

Deputy Commissioner Ofincome Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Finance and Leasing Company Co-Op. Society Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4232/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Section 23(1)(a)

Date of Hearing 29/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement 29/08/2024 आदेश / O R DER PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee against order dated 27/09/2023 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2014-15

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Deepti Agrawal, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 224/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshdcit Vs. Deepti Agrawal Central Circle – 15 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi-110 054 Pan No. Aampa 0573 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 48/Del/2024 (In Ita No.224/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2016-17) Deepti Agrawal Vs. Dcit 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane, Central Circle – 15 Civil Lines, New Delhi New Delhi-110 054 Pan No. Aampa 0573 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69C

/Del/2024 CO No.48/Del/2024 Deepti Agarwal 2 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal in ITA No.224/Del/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 along with Cross Objection No. 48/Del/2024 arises out of the order by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 26, Delhi in appeal No. 11112/2015-16 dated 22.11.2023 (hereinafter referred ... hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 23.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. At the outset, the Cross Objection preferred by the assessee was stated to be not pressed by the learned AR since the learned DR fairly aggrieved that the issue involved

Anil Kumar Ahuja, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward 2, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3004/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 69A

reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 10. The assessee filed cross objections supporting the order of the Id. CIT(A). Since, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous, hence, dismissed ... result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed." [PB.Pg.No.85 to 88]. Anantpur Kalpana Vs. ITO. [2022] 194 ITD 702 (Bang.Trib): In this case the Tribunal held as under: Where Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 on account of cash deposited

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 Pune, Pune vs. Surana Mutha Bhansali Developers, Pune

In the result, the appeal is 'allowed"

ITA 673/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 131(10)(d)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal I.T.A.No.673/PUN./2024 and assessee’s cross objection C.O.No.26/PUN./2024, for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order ... substantive ground in it’s appeal ITA.No.673/PUN./2024. 4. Learned counsel submits that the assessee does not wish to press of it’s cross objections C.O.No.26/PUN./2024. Rejected accordingly. 5. To sum-up, this Revenue’s appeal ITA.No.673/PUN./2024 is dismissed in above terms and assessee