← 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, C-1, Kolkata vs. Naba Dignata Water Management Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenus is hereby dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is not press in view of our findings on forgoing

ITA 887/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: proceeding for disallowances the AO has conducted necessary examination and ground work, which are evident from the recordings of note-sheet.

Section 147Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)

I.T.A. No. 887/Kol/2023 CO No. 19/Kol/2023 Naba Dignata Water Management Ltd. ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2011-12 is directed against the order passed ... appeal and/ or adduce addition evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of cross objection : “1) CO No. 1-Validity of the reassessment proceedings a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Motech Software Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2295/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 69

Mahita Nair, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are directed against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-57, Mumbai ... facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2 Motech Software Pvt. Ltd., 2. In the cross objection, the assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment of both the years under consideration. 3. In the appeal filed by the revenue for assessment

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Motech Software Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2294/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal &
Section 69

Mahita Nair, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : Date of Pronouncement : ORDER 31/05/2024 28/08/2024 PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are directed against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-57, Mumbai ... facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 1 Motech Software Pvt. Ltd., 2. In the cross objection, the assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of assessment of both the years under consideration. 3. In the appeal filed by the revenue for assessment

Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy, CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 624/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT D.R. &
Section 14A

Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed arising out of the common order dated 24th March, 2023 passed in ITANo.547/And/2016, ITA No.624/Ahd/2016 with Cross Objection No.58/Ahd/2016 in ITA No.247/Ahd/2016.Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter back to Tribunal, qua the grounds related with disallowance u/s 14A. ITA Nos.547/Ahd/2016 ... assessee’s own surplus funds that were invested in the shares earning exempted income. Ground No. 1 and 2 of Assessee’ Cross Objection against ITA No.547/Ahd/2016 1. Without prejudice to the claim that no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is justified in the facts of the case

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 547/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT D.R. &
Section 14A

Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed arising out of the common order dated 24th March, 2023 passed in ITANo.547/And/2016, ITA No.624/Ahd/2016 with Cross Objection No.58/Ahd/2016 in ITA No.247/Ahd/2016.Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter back to Tribunal, qua the grounds related with disallowance u/s 14A. ITA Nos.547/Ahd/2016 ... assessee’s own surplus funds that were invested in the shares earning exempted income. Ground No. 1 and 2 of Assessee’ Cross Objection against ITA No.547/Ahd/2016 1. Without prejudice to the claim that no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is justified in the facts of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Teck Consultancy and Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 675/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T Kottaram, CIT, DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Jose T Kottaram, CIT, DR Date of hearing : 24/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 26/08/2024 PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Instant appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee arefiled against the order of theLearned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 50, Mumbai [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section ... search, and such incriminating material was corroborated by the statements of well-known entry operators recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act?" 2.2. In cross objection, the assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) ought

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Raheja Universal Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4847/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CA
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 250

Mahita Nair, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : :10.06.2024 26.08.2024 ORDER Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: The appeal and cross objection under consideration have been preferred by the Revenue and Assessee respectively against the order dated 05.10.2023, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income

Income Tax Officer 30(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Vivek Ranjit Tanna, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 2055/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrianikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Foram Jatin Solanki, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (SR. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Mehul Jain (SR. DR) Date of hearing : 19/08/2024 Date of pronouncement : 21/ 08/2024 PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Instant appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of theLearned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section ... course of search. " 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter or add a new ground which may be necessary. Assessee’s Cross Objection “GROUNDS FOR CROSS OBJECTION: -Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1) has erred

ACIT, CC-26, Delhi vs. Jai Maa Bhawani Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, Cross objections are allowed

ITA 229/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi JainFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Pandey
Section 132Section 153ASection 248

Bhawani Overseas Pvt. Ltd. O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The group of appeals and the cross objections filed by the assessee and revenue are directed against the orders all dated 24.11.2021 arising out of the orders all dated 26.12.2018 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle ... hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013- 14 and 2015-16. 2. The assessee has filed the cross objections mainly raising the ground of maintainability of the proceedings and against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 153C/144

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana vs. Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

ITA 499/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground or appeal before it is finally disposed off. 3. There is a Cross Objection, i.e., C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 in this case filed by the Assessee, which we shall deal in latter part of this order after deciding the appeal ... interference. Accordingly, Revenue’s appeal on this Ground is hereby dismissed. 15. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. C.O. No.09/Chd/2024 – Assessee’s Cross Objections. 16. The Assessee through its aforesaid Cross objections has raised following grounds: 1 That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Narendra Sampatlal Bafna, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 688/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

directed against the order dated 12.02.2024 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has filed the Cross Objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue. For the sake of convenience, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross 2 CO No.25/PUN/2024 Objection ... given, the AO could have provided seized material to the assessee and cross examination would have been possible? 9. The assessee has also filed Cross Objections raising the following grounds merely in support of the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC: 1. On the facts and m the circumstances

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Sandeep Bipinchandra Jhaveri, Mumbai

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

ITA 1185/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

order dated 24.08.2023 passed by Ld CIT(A)-12, Pune for the 2 C.O. No.06/PUN/2024 assessment year 2013-14. The assessee is also in Cross Objection bearing C.O. No.06/PUN/2024 against the appeal of the Revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on the facts ... Revenue stands dismissed. C.O. No.06/PUN/2024 : 16. Since the appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by us in the foregoing paragraphs, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and, therefore, the same is dismissed. 13 C.O. No.06/PUN/2024 17. In the result, the Cross Objection filed

M/S Mspl Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 374/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. J. D. Mistri, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Bench in the case of New Mangalore Port Authority v. JCITITA Nos.755 - 757/Bang/2023&C.O. Nos. 6 to 8/Bang/2023 wherein the Department has raised a cross objection on the legal issue and the Ld.DR relied on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) but this ... allow to raise new issues which are not at all mentioned in the assessment orders passed. With the aforesaid observations, we, therefore, dismiss the cross objections field by the revenue as the same are found to be devoid of any merit.” 1.2 It is submitted that this Hon’ble Tribunal

M/S Mspl Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 373/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. J. D. Mistri, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Bench in the case of New Mangalore Port Authority v. JCITITA Nos.755 - 757/Bang/2023&C.O. Nos. 6 to 8/Bang/2023 wherein the Department has raised a cross objection on the legal issue and the Ld.DR relied on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) but this ... allow to raise new issues which are not at all mentioned in the assessment orders passed. With the aforesaid observations, we, therefore, dismiss the cross objections field by the revenue as the same are found to be devoid of any merit.” 1.2 It is submitted that this Hon’ble Tribunal

M/S Mspl Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

ITA 372/BANG/2011[2006-07]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. J. D. Mistri, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Bench in the case of New Mangalore Port Authority v. JCITITA Nos.755 - 757/Bang/2023&C.O. Nos. 6 to 8/Bang/2023 wherein the Department has raised a cross objection on the legal issue and the Ld.DR relied on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) but this ... allow to raise new issues which are not at all mentioned in the assessment orders passed. With the aforesaid observations, we, therefore, dismiss the cross objections field by the revenue as the same are found to be devoid of any merit.” 1.2 It is submitted that this Hon’ble Tribunal

ACIT, Circle-51(1), New Delhi vs. Naveen Batra, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 32/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

Income Tax 2 ITA No.32/Del/2020 & CO No.69/Del/2020 Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2017-18. The Assessee has also filed cross objection memo in the revenue appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Jewellery. A survey proceedings were initiated by the Income ... filed the appeal with reference to relief granted on account of excess stock of Rs. 2,25,53,159/-. The Assessee has also filed cross objections with reference to additions retained of Rs. 4,91,412/- out of excess cash by the CIT(A). 6. With reference to tax treatment

Income Tax Officer, Palakkad vs. The Palakkad District Co-Op Society Ltd, Palakkad

ITA 798/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.N.R.Neelakandan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR &
Section 194A(3)(v)Section 250Section 40Section 40a

Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.798/Coch/2023 and assessee’s Cross Objection No.06/Coch/2024 arise out of order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [CIT(A)] dated 17.10.2023 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057146676(1) passed ... Revenue’s instant appeal. ITA No.798/Coch/2023 which stands rejected therefore. 4 The Palakkad District Co-op Society Ltd. 4. Next comes the assessee’s cross objection in CO No.06/Coch/2024, pleading the following substantive grounds:- “1. The Learned CIT(A) - NFAC is not justified in disposing the appeal ex-parte without

Chalasani Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 315/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.315/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Chalasani Hospitals (P.) Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle – 1(1) D.No. 50-53-14, Gurudwara Lane Income Tax Office Seethammadhara Direct Taxes Building Visakhapatnam – 530013 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam -530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan :Aaecc0005G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal and cross objection are filed by the assessee and revenue respectively, against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], National ... thereby restoring the order of the Ld. AO on this issue. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 13. With regard to the Cross Objection filed by the revenue, since the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed thereby restoring the order of the Ld.AO on this issue

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-16(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2415/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : 14.05.2024 : 12.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. This is a batch of cross-appeals and cross objections pertaining to Assessment Years 2012-2013 to 2017-2018. The facts, common to all the cross appeals and cross objections are as under ... Revenue and the Assessee are before us in appeal/cross-objection. 1.4. We note that there is a delay of around 55 days in filing the Cross Objections. We have considered the rival submission on the application seeking condonation of aforesaid delay. It was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that filing

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-16(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2414/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order 14.05.2024 12.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. This is a batch of cross-appeals and cross objections pertaining to Assessment Years 2012-2013 to 2017-2018. The facts, common to all the cross appeals and cross objections are as under ... Revenue and the Assessee are before us in appeal/cross-objection. 1.4. We note that there is a delay of around 55 days in filing the Cross Objections. We have considered the rival submission on the application seeking condonation of aforesaid delay. It was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that filing