“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

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Dheer Chand Sharma, Ghaziabadi

In the result, cross objection stands partly allowed, whereas appeal by the

ITA 715/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 153A

pronouncement 31.05.2024 4 ITA 713/Del/2019 & ors. C.O. nos. 61/Del/2019 & ors. O R D E R PER BENCH: This bunch of 22 appeals and cross-objections, respectively, by the Revenue and the assessees, arise out of separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi, pertaining to assessment ... have been clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. 2. The grounds raised in the appeals and cross objections are more or less identical, except variation in figures. Facts relating to the issues in dispute are also more or less identical. Therefore

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Dheer Chand Sharma, Ghaziabadi

In the result, cross objection stands partly allowed, whereas appeal by the

ITA 714/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 153A

DCIT, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad vs. Vinay Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, cross objection stands partly allowed, whereas appeal by the

ITA 711/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 153A

DCIT, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad vs. Vinay Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, cross objection stands partly allowed, whereas appeal by the

ITA 710/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 153A

ACIT Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Kissan Petrol Oils Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4700/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Kissan Petrol Oils Pvt. Ltd., Circle-14(2), D-10, South Extn., Part Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 002. Pan: Aadck0136D Co No.81/Del/2022 (Ita No.4700/Del/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kissan Petrol Oils Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, D-10, South Extn., Part Ii, Circle-14(2), New Delhi – 110 002. New Delhi Pan: Aadck0136D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

referred as ‘the Act’), by the ACIT, Circle 14(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). The assessee has also filed Cross Objection to the grounds taken by the Revenue in its appeal. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. At the time of hearing ... Circular No.17/2019 is applicable even to pending appeals, the appeal in ITA No.4700/Del/2019 is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, Cross Objection filed by the assessee in CO No.81/Del/2022 becomes infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. In regard to the appeal of the assessee bearing No.1338/Del/2022

ACIT Circle-36(1), New Delhi vs. Himanshu Garg, New Delhi

ITA 819/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 54BSection 54F

Date of Hearing: 11.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement:30.05.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal and the Cross Objection have been filed by the Revenue and the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi dated 16.12.2019. 2. Following grounds have been ... considered as capital gains. Order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is affirmed. 2. Deed No. 987 – Rs.47,49,200 and Cross Objection 19. As per the AO,  Assessee purchased 4 Kanal for Rs.18,72,500/- on 28.09.2010  Assessee purchased 15 Kanal 19 Marla for Rs.54

The ACIT Central-1, Bhopal vs. Smt Meenakshi Saraiya, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue and CO are dismissed

ITA 231/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)- Smt. Meenakshi Saraiya Bhopal E-13/111, Arera Colony Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Anrps3407K Revenue By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Assessee By Shri Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr

Section 132Section 132(4)

Date of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 O R D E R ITANo.231/Ind/2023 & CO No.02/Ind/2024 Meenakshi Saraiya Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : The appeal by revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order dated 27.03.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2018-19.The ... revenue are decided on merits in favour of the assessee and against the revenue then this objection raised by the assessee in the cross objection becomes academic in nature. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court staying orders of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and this

ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S Tvs Motor Company Limited, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील िं./Ita No. 06/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17. The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. Chaitanya, No.12, Corporate Circle-3(1), Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aaacs7032B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit ुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 12Section 153(1)Section 250(6)Section 9Section 92C

case of ACIT vs Vireet Investment (P) Ltd (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trip) (SB) had occasion to deal with similar issue. The cross objection field in that case reads as under: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance ... file of AO for recomputing the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of above observations. Thus, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection, on the issue in question, stand allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above.….” 10. We have considered the findings of the CIT(A) Supra

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi., Delhi vs. Sandeep Bajaj, Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 2993/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 07/08/2023 for Assessment Year 2018-19, whereas the Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee. 2. The Revenue has raised the grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances ... grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in Cross Objection:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Smt. Anju Ajay Saraf, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 32/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 80I

Saraf ITA no.30/Nag./2018 C.O. no.3/Nag./2018 ITA no.32/Nag./2020 C.O. no.7/Nag./2020 2012-13 and 2014-15 respectively. The assessee has also filed Cross Objections for the years under consideration, which are in support of the appeals filed by the Revenue. 2. Since both the Revenue’s appeals pertain ... assessment year 2014–15 as well. We order accordingly. 13. In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2014-15 is dismissed. Cross Objection no.3/Nag./2018 and Cross Objection no.7/Nag./2020 A.Y. 2012-13 and 2014-15 14. The Cross Objections filed by the Assessee are in support

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Smt. Anju Ajay Saraf, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 30/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 80I

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Viskahapatnam vs. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Company Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 239/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, BHPV Post Visakhapatnam NH-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [PAN :AAJCS7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.20/Viz/2023 & 21/Viz/2023 (Arising out of I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020) (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/s Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Vs. Assistant ... levying penalty and therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue. 8. Cross objections filed by the assessee are supportive in nature, hence dismissed as infructuous. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross

Niranjan Kumar Hirjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-33(7), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 145/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

with effect from 01.06.2001 becomes wholly academic and, therefore, the ground raised by Department is dismissed as infructuous. Further , since the Cross objection filed by the assessee is in support of Ld. CIT(A)’s order, the same is also dismissed as being infructuous.” Since the facts of the case

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

same net profit is directed to be applied on such business receipts of Rs 13,55,000. In the result, the assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed. Thus alternatively and without prejudice at the worst the ld. AO could have applied the Net profit rate on such alleged

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2308/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A))– 15, Mumbai passed u/sec143(3) and U/sec250 of the Act, and the Cross Objection (C.O) is filed by the assessee in the revenue appeal. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals and CO are common and identical

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited, Pune

ITA 998/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.998/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Ctr Manufacturing Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacc7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. PAN: AAACC7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection No.4/PUN/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner CTR Manufacturing of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon ... Private Limited AY 2014-15 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These are two appeals ITA No.998/PUN/2023 filed by the Revenue and cross objection C.O. No.4/PUN/2024 filedby the Assessee are directed against the order ofld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] u/s.250 of the Act, dated 17.07.2023 emanating from

DCIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

ITA 541/MUM/2024[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(3) V. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road 8Th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old Cgo Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca5452C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to A.Ys. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2011-12 and 20019-10 respectively. CO No. 63/MUM/2024 is cross objection by the assessee preferred against order of the Ld. CIT(A) pertaining to A.Y.2014-15. 2. The appeals and the cross objection were heard together ... penalty. ITA No. 538, 539, 540 & 541/MUM/2024 CO No. 63/MUM/2024 Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale 9. On the given facts the cross objection is also allowed. 10. To sum-up, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

DCIT CC -2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

ITA 540/MUM/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

DCIT CC -2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

ITA 539/MUM/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)