“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(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 200/VIZ/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos.202, 198, 199, 188, 200/Viz/2022 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hindustan Shipyard Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aach 4275 P (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044871971(1) 23/08/2022 2012-13 4. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044555810(1) 08/08/2022 2013-14 5. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044838255(1) 23/08/2022 2014-15 The assessee has also filed the captioned Cross Objections (C.Os. No. 08, 09, 10, 11 & 12/Viz/2023). The assessee also filed cross appeal I.T.A. No.203/Viz/2022 (AY: 2011-12) against the order ... Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. Since the issues 3 raised in all the Revenue’s appeals are identical, so also the Cross Objections raised by the assessee are identical, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. Appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 199/VIZ/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 198/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S the British Co. Ed. School, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Atul Ashok Parakh, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 2/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 69

hearing : 22-05-2024 Date of 21-06-2024 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee arise out of order dated 02.11.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi ... turnover of the assessee and computing commission income on Rs.2,07,42,724/- @ 0.514%.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of cross objections:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in objecting the order of Resp. CIT(A)-NFAC

DCIT(Central)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Prakash Gandalal Patel, Mumbai

ITA 932/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharydcit (Central)1-(1) Vs. Prakash Gandalal Patel 905, 9Th Floor, 231, Rushabh Apartment Pratistha Bhavan, Dr. Parekh Street Maharashtra – 400020 Prathana Samaj Maharashtra – 400004 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Acwpp0009N Respondent .. Appellant Appellant By : Ajay Singh Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

For Appellant: Ajay SinghFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(3)

P a g e | 1 DCIT (Central)1-(1) Vs. Prakash Gandalal Patel IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

DCIT(Central)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Prakash Gandalal Patel, Mumbai

ITA 930/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharydcit (Central)1-(1) Vs. Prakash Gandalal Patel 905, 9Th Floor, Pratistha 231, Rushabh Apartment Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dr. Parekh Street Maharashtra – 400020 Prathaana Samaj Maharashtra – 400004 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Acwpp0009N Respondent .. Appellant Appellant By : Ajay Singh Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

For Appellant: Ajay SinghFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(3)

P a g e | 1 DCIT (Central)1-(1) Vs. Prakash Gandalal Patel IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

ITA 1977/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora, Nikhil Tiwari & Mihir ChitaliaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

Hearing : 27.05.2024 Pronouncement: 21.06.2024 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, JM : The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee, against the order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the NFAC for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147/143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income ... holding the same as an ascertained liability? 2 3 ITA No.1977 & CO 79/Mum/2023 (AY 2003-04) M/s.Tata Mortors Limited. 3. In the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “A. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in objecting

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the C

ITA 4798/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri / Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 36(1)(iii)

4798/Mum/ 2015 & C.O. No. 01/Mum/ 2024 M/s Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated ... Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No. 1/Mum/2024 15 ITA No. 4798/Mum/ 2015 & C.O. No. 01/Mum/ 2024 M/s Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. 22. The assessee has raised cross objections with regard to the decision of the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the rate charged towards guarantee fee @0.23%. We notice that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust, Jaipur

16. As a result, finding no merit in the appeal filed by the department, the same is hereby dismissed

ITA 707/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 12ASection 143(3)

Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust PER BENCH: This common judgment is to dispose of above captioned appeal- ITA No. 707/JPR/2023 filed by the department, and Cross-objection No.10/JPR/2023 filed by the assessee named above, as the same arise out of same impugned order i.e. dated 05.10.2023 passed by Learned CIT(A)/NFAC ... Trust Result 16. As a result, finding no merit in the appeal filed by the department, the same is hereby dismissed. As regards, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee, for the reasons recorded by Learned CIT(A) in the impugned order, and the findings recorded above, we hold that

ITO Ward-5(2), New Delhi vs. Sanchit Consultants Pvt. Ltd.(Now Amalgamated to M/S. Bulish Trading Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8198/DEL/2019[2008-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2008-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmveer Singh, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Vikas Jain, Advocate

Section 153Section 153C

consequent to the directions of the Tribunal in ITA No. 6415/Del/2013 (supra). In the 3 first round of appeal by the Department and the cross objections by the assessee, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of AO with following directions: “9.2 Considering the facts of the case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai. vs. Narendra G Mehta HUF, Mumbai

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

ITA 3557/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, C.C. 5(1) Vs. Narendra G. Mehta Huf, Room No.1928, 19Th Floor, Ground Floor, Pankaj Air India Building, Mahel, Opp, K.C. College, Nariman Point, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahn8330A Appellant .. Respondent C.O No.25/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) Narendra G. Mehta Huf, Vs. Dcit, C.C. 5(1) Ground Floor, Pankaj Room No.1928, 19Th Mahel, Opp, K.C. College, Floor, Air India Building, Church Gate, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: : Aaahn8330A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC. Since the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesse are based on identical facts on P a g e | 2 ITA No.3557/Mum/2023, C.O.25/Mum/2024 DCIT, CC-5(1) Vs. Narendra ... working the addition at 0.1% in the hand of the assessee. Therefore, ground no. 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed. Cross Objection No. 25/Mum/2024 6. During the course of appellate proceeding before us the ld. Counsel has not pressed the cross objection filed by the assessee, therefore

I.T.O Ward 41(4)(1), Bkc Mumbai vs. Fairdeal Realitie, Mumbai

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

ITA 3297/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year :2015-16 I.T.O Ward 41(4)(1),Bkc Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051. ---- Appellant Vs. Fairdeal Realite, Flexcel Park, B-Wing, Ground Floor, S.V.Road, Next To Karat Multiplex Mumbai 400 102 Pan: Aaaff-7074-K --- Respondent C.O No.29/Mum/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.3297/Mum/2023,A.Y.2015-16] Fairdeal Realite, Flexcel Park, B-Wing, Ground Floor, S.V.Road, Next To Karat Multiplex Mumbai 400 102 Pan: Aaaff-7074-K ...... Cross Objector Vs. I.T.O Ward 41(4)(1),Bkc Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 ...... Appellant In Appeal Revenue By : Shri Surendra Meena Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena

Hearing : 12/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 18/06/2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and they relate to the assessment year ... /MUM/2022& CO.No.29/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2015-16. decision of Ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.3.93 crores made by the AO. In the cross objection, the assessee is challenging the valuation determined by the DVO. 2. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee

M/S. Mahaveera Minority Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Vijayanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

ITA 528/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68

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. 8. Learned DR reiterated the stand of the Revenue as reflected in the order of the CIT(A). 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Both the AO and CIT(A) accepted

DCIT Circle-23(1), New Delhi vs. Ram Kumar Shokeen, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 151

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, I.T.A. Nos.1009/Del/2020 2 CO No.109/Del/2022 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2011-12. The Assessee has also filed cross objection memo in the revenue appeal. 2. As per the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised grounds touching the assumption of jurisdiction under Section ... challenge thus strikes to the root of the litigation and hence acquires primacy over other issues. The cross objection is thus taken up for adjudication at the first instance. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that the assessee

Caterpillar India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2749/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCC-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In ITA No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT M/s. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7th floor, International Tech Park, Central ... directions of Ld. DRP, final assessment order was passed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 1.2 The Revenue has filed cross-objection against the additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. In these additional grounds, the assessee has raised the ground of limitation. However, these

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tvs Investments Lrd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. AR

dismiss the ground taken by the Revenue on this issue. 17. In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes. We find that identical fact exists in the present case and the aforesaid findings are clearly applicable. Similar analogous

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chamber vs. Mukesh Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA no

ITA 3514/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

02/05/2024 ———“Ct‘ Date of Pronouncement smear / ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): The aforesaid revenue’s appeal in ITA no. 3514/MUM/2023 and assessee’s Cross Objections in Co no. 35/MUM/2024, arise out of the common impugned order dated 04.08.2023, passed by Learned CIT(A), hence both are being disposed ... purchases are liable to disallowed. 4.In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, assessee appeared and participated in the hearing along with his cross objections. 5. We have perused the material on record and heard learned representatives for both the parties. 6. The main point for determination under appeal

Ashok Chowdhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward, Jhalawar

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 254Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bengaluru vs. Shri Giriyappa Dayananda, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh Kumar L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

ITAT, appeal was filed on 01/08/2023. e. The appeal memo was made available to Applicant on 22/ 11/2023, and the assessee is filing this cross objection against the appeal fined by Ld. AO in this present case. f. The Applicant ought to have filed appeal before ITAT on or before ... peace of mind by paying taxes. However, due to appeal preferred by Ld. AO / Pr. CIT(C), the appellant if preferring this cross-objection challenging various grounds along with additions made by Ld. AO. ITA No.543/Bang/2023 & CO 1/Bang/2024 Sri Giriyappa Dayananda, Bangalore Page 4 of 6 g. The Applicant