← 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

M/S. Labland Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 608/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeylabland Biotechs Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer #01, 8Th Km, Krs Road Ward - 1(1), Mysuru Vs. Metagalli, Mysuru 570016 Pan – Aaacl2892A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062548837(1) Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Confirming The Assessment Of A Sum Of Rs.87,39,282/- As Income From Other Sources Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2.1 The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Income Derived By The Appellant Is From Agriculture Operations, Which Is Exempt U/S.10[1] Of The Act Read With Explanation Of Section 2[1] Of The Act & Consequently, The Learned Cit[A]/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Kumar S., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 250

find it necessary to decide on any of the issues raised by the Revenue as also other issues in assessee's cross objection. AO shall be free to consider these issues also when the matter is considered afresh.” During the course of the Assessment proceedings the assessee has produced

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(2), New Delhi vs. Clarcor India Private Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 2910/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Clarcor India Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), Level 2F, Elegance Tower, New Delhi Old Mathura Road, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcc7801B

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Bajaj, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, we find that the registry had sent a defect notice stating that the cross objection has been preferred by the assessee with a delay of 230 days. In response thereto, the assessee had duly clarified that the fact ... deputed to Tribunal on 21.2.2024 with request letter for providing Grounds of Appeal of Revenue. This was received on 21.2.2024 and within 30 days, cross objection was preferred by the assessee. In view of the above explanation, we hold that there was no delay at all in filing cross objection

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, Hq Sirhind vs. Partap Industries Limited, Rajpura

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 464/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Partap Industries Limited, बनाम Rajpura Ward-1, New Libra Kothi, Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Road, Sirhind Hq. Sirhind, 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp0384Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Shri Raman Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 341/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

supra) and finding of this tribunal in the case of the Exide Industries Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under: “9. Now, we take the cross-objection and the only issue raised by the assessee relates to the rate of Dividend Distribution Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'DDT') paid ... decided against the assessee observing as follows:- “18. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. In the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised a ground that dividend distribution tax payable on the dividend distributed /paid to Chloride Eastern Limited, a foreign company

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 340/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

supra) and finding of this tribunal in the case of the Exide Industries Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under: “9. Now, we take the cross-objection and the only issue raised by the assessee relates to the rate of Dividend Distribution Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'DDT') paid ... decided against the assessee observing as follows:- “18. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. In the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised a ground that dividend distribution tax payable on the dividend distributed /paid to Chloride Eastern Limited, a foreign company

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 339/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

supra) and finding of this tribunal in the case of the Exide Industries Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under: “9. Now, we take the cross-objection and the only issue raised by the assessee relates to the rate of Dividend Distribution Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'DDT') paid ... decided against the assessee observing as follows:- “18. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. In the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised a ground that dividend distribution tax payable on the dividend distributed /paid to Chloride Eastern Limited, a foreign company

Philips India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 338/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. Nos.338 To 341/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20 Philips India Ltd ………. Appellant (Pan: Aabcp9487A) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Kolkata. ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vishal Jain Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 08.07.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years (In Short “Ay”) 2016-17 To 2019-20 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 10.02.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 237 Of The Act By Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata Dated 26.06.2019 (For Ays 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20), 28.06.2019 (For Ay 2018-19) Respectively. Since Grounds Are Common & Facts Are Identical, Except Variance In Amount, We Dispose Of All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order

Section 115Section 237Section 244ASection 250

supra) and finding of this tribunal in the case of the Exide Industries Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under: “9. Now, we take the cross-objection and the only issue raised by the assessee relates to the rate of Dividend Distribution Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'DDT') paid ... decided against the assessee observing as follows:- “18. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. In the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised a ground that dividend distribution tax payable on the dividend distributed /paid to Chloride Eastern Limited, a foreign company

Deutsche Equities India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 8354/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Respondent/Assessee : Shri Anil Sant Date Conclusion of hearing : 10.04.2024 Pronouncement of order : 08.07.2024 ORDER Per Bench: 1. This batch of Cross-appeals and Cross Objection pertain to Assessment Year 2005-06, and arise from the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [hereinafter referred ... consequently merits to be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored” The Assessee has raised following grounds by way of Cross Objection No. 227/Mum/2012 filed in ITA No. 8033/Mum/2011: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the benefit/reduction

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Equities India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 8033/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Sant Date Conclusion of hearing : 10.04.2024 Pronouncement of order : 08.07.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. This batch of Cross-appeals and Cross Objection pertain to Assessment Year 2005–06, and arise from the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [hereinafter referred ... consequently merits to be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored” 2.4. The Assessee has raised following grounds by way of Cross Objection No. 227/Mum/2012 filed in ITA No. 8033/Mum/2011: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the benefit/reduction

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, Hq Sirhind vs. New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Bus Transport Pvt. Ltd., Sirhind

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 470/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Under Section 139(1) Of The Act, The Cpc Has Relied

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandi Gobindgarh, Hq Sirhind vs. New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Bus Transport Pvt. Ltd., Sirhind

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 469/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Under Section 139(1) Of The Act, The Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Income Tax Officer, Ward1, Ahmednagar vs. Atul Ashok Parakh, Ahmednagar

The appeal are allowed

ITA 304/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 69

directed against the order dated 21.12.2023 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has filed the Cross Objections against the appeal filed by the Revenue. For the sake of convenience, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross 2 CO No.17/PUN/2024 Objections

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Enn Vee Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1841/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

view, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Dismissed. ” 49.3 In view of the above discussion, we allow the ground of cross objection No.1 and hold that since no incriminating material was found as a result of the search conducted on the assessee, therefore, the notice issued

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Enn Vee Holdings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1840/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

view, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Dismissed. ” 49.3 In view of the above discussion, we allow the ground of cross objection No.1 and hold that since no incriminating material was found as a result of the search conducted on the assessee, therefore, the notice issued

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1838/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

view, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Dismissed. ” 49.3 In view of the above discussion, we allow the ground of cross objection No.1 and hold that since no incriminating material was found as a result of the search conducted on the assessee, therefore, the notice issued

DCIT- CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1837/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

view, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Dismissed. ” 49.3 In view of the above discussion, we allow the ground of cross objection No.1 and hold that since no incriminating material was found as a result of the search conducted on the assessee, therefore, the notice issued

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2196/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

Formerly known as Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCM-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 7. Cross Objection No.142/Chny/2017 (In ITA No.1897/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बनाम/ The Ramco Cements Limited DCIT (Formerly known as Madras Cements ... delete interest disallowance. The indirect expense disallowance would be restricted on investments which have actually yielded any exempt income during the year. The cross-objection of the assessee stand partly allowed. Department’s Appeal for AY 2010-11 12. The sole grievance of the revenue is depreciation on windmill components

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1897/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

Formerly known as Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCM-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 7. Cross Objection No.142/Chny/2017 (In ITA No.1897/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बनाम/ The Ramco Cements Limited DCIT (Formerly known as Madras Cements ... delete interest disallowance. The indirect expense disallowance would be restricted on investments which have actually yielded any exempt income during the year. The cross-objection of the assessee stand partly allowed. Department’s Appeal for AY 2010-11 12. The sole grievance of the revenue is depreciation on windmill components

The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 958/CHNY/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

Formerly known as Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCM-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 7. Cross Objection No.142/Chny/2017 (In ITA No.1897/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बनाम/ The Ramco Cements Limited DCIT (Formerly known as Madras Cements ... delete interest disallowance. The indirect expense disallowance would be restricted on investments which have actually yielded any exempt income during the year. The cross-objection of the assessee stand partly allowed. Department’s Appeal for AY 2010-11 12. The sole grievance of the revenue is depreciation on windmill components

The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 957/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

Formerly known as Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCM-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 7. Cross Objection No.142/Chny/2017 (In ITA No.1897/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बनाम/ The Ramco Cements Limited DCIT (Formerly known as Madras Cements ... delete interest disallowance. The indirect expense disallowance would be restricted on investments which have actually yielded any exempt income during the year. The cross-objection of the assessee stand partly allowed. Department’s Appeal for AY 2010-11 12. The sole grievance of the revenue is depreciation on windmill components