← 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 CC -2(3) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Avinash Bhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Pune

ITA 538/MUM/2024[2014]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 19 3, Mumbai vs. Sanjiv Mahendra Parikh, Mumbai

ITA 3515/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Pronouncement of order : 24.05.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objection filed by the Assessee arise from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi CO No. 19/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year ... complied with the notices issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the Act, which is contradictory." 2.1. The Assessee has raised following grounds of cross objections in CO No. 19/Mum/2024: “1. The Learned CIT(A) legally erred in upholding the validity of notice issued for re-opening

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT - 10 (1), Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6025/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 07.07.2016 pertaining to A.Y.2011-12. C.O. No. 31/Mum/2018 is the cross objection by the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The cross appeals and the cross objection were heard together and are disposed ... 5979/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) CO NO. 31/MUM/2018 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., C.O. No. 31/MUM/2018 96. The grounds of cross objection read as under: - Grounds not decided 1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in not deciding the following grounds of appeal: "Disallowance under section 14A Ground

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5979/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 42(1)(a)Section 80Section 80I

Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 07.07.2016 pertaining to A.Y.2011-12. C.O. No. 31/Mum/2018 is the cross objection by the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The cross appeals and the cross objection were heard together and are disposed ... 5979/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) CO NO. 31/MUM/2018 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., C.O. No. 31/MUM/2018 96. The grounds of cross objection read as under: - Grounds not decided 1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in not deciding the following grounds of appeal: "Disallowance under section 14A Ground

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Karanvir Bajaj, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1942/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumaracit, Vs. Karanvir Bajaj, Central Circle, House No. 21, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgwpb8463K Co No. 82/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 1942/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Karanvir Bajaj, Vs. Acit, House No. 21, Central Circle, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgwpb8463K

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. This appeal in ITA No. 1942/Del/2023 is filed by the revenue and the cross objection No. 82/Del/2023 for A.Y. 2018-19 arises out of the order by ld CIT(A)-3, Noida in appeal No. CIT(A)-IV/KNP/11086/2017-18 dated 28.04.2023 (hereinafter referred ... Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. CO No. 82/Del/2023 Karanvir Bajaj 5. The ld AR submitted that cross objection preferred by the assessee are only supportive of the order of the ld CIT(A). Hence, the same is hereby dismissed as infructuous. 6. In the result, both

Pratap Chandra Sau Welfare Trust, Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward-38(1), Midnapur

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

ITA 375/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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

Pratap Chandra Sau Welfare Trust, Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward-38(1), Midnapur

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

ITA 374/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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

ITO, Sonepat vs. Sh. Dharampal, Sonepat

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly

ITA 2569/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Vs Dharampal, Ward-1, S/O Shri Gugan Ram, Sonepat. Vill. Revali, Sonepat. Pan: Azupd1215B Co No.151/Del/2018 (Ita No.2569/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dharampal, Vs. Ito, S/O Shri Gugan Ram, Ward-1, Vill. Revali, Sonepat. Sonepat. Pan: Azupd1215B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 16.02.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak (Hereinafter Co No.151/Del/2018 Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.215/2013-14 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 25.03.2013 Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-3, Sonepat (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR &
Section 147Section 2(47)Section 53ASection 68Section 69

hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-3, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). The assessee has filed cross objection. 2. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of reassessment notice u/s 147/148 as the assessee was found to have made an investment ... consequence of the above determination of the grounds as above, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly. 8 CO No.151/Del/2018 11. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was not pressed. Hence, the same is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.05.2024. (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-28, New Delhi vs. Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Noida, U.P

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 13(2)Section 132Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 7

appellant/Revenue, challenges the order dated 08.11.2023, of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [In short, the ‘CIT(A)’]. The assessee filed Cross Objection to this appeal. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the assessee, a company, engaged in the business of infrastructure activities, filed ... assessee got part relief. The reliefs granted by the CIT(A) were challenged by the Revenue vide 11 grounds of appeal. The assessee filed Cross Objection to the Revenue appeal by raising objection to the institution of appeal during the moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV & 4, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Baroda / Vadodara vide orders dated 24.03.2014 & 14.06.2016 and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Vadodara passed for A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since common facts and issues ... additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 (A.Y. 2011-12):- 58. We further observe that the Cross Objection raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-2 (C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017) is only supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) and further, since the grounds

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax., Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV & 4, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Baroda / Vadodara vide orders dated 24.03.2014 & 14.06.2016 and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Vadodara passed for A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since common facts and issues ... additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 (A.Y. 2011-12):- 58. We further observe that the Cross Objection raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-2 (C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017) is only supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) and further, since the grounds

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The ACIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2004/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV & 4, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Baroda / Vadodara vide orders dated 24.03.2014 & 14.06.2016 and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Vadodara passed for A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since common facts and issues ... additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 (A.Y. 2011-12):- 58. We further observe that the Cross Objection raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-2 (C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017) is only supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) and further, since the grounds

The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1873/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV & 4, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Baroda / Vadodara vide orders dated 24.03.2014 & 14.06.2016 and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Vadodara passed for A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since common facts and issues ... additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017 (A.Y. 2011-12):- 58. We further observe that the Cross Objection raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2011-2 (C.O. No. 14/Ahd/2017) is only supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) and further, since the grounds

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 71/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADZPM-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In ITA No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In ITA No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year ... Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In ITA No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri M. Sukumar Reddy ACIT बनाम/ 3rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, Chennai. Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADZPM-1863-H (Cross-Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 70/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADZPM-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In ITA No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In ITA No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year ... Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In ITA No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri M. Sukumar Reddy ACIT बनाम/ 3rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, Chennai. Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADZPM-1863-H (Cross-Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे

ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai vs. M Sukumar Reddy, Chennai

ITA 69/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADZPM-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In ITA No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In ITA No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year ... Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In ITA No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri M. Sukumar Reddy ACIT बनाम/ 3rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, Chennai. Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADZPM-1863-H (Cross-Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे

Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Umesh Rohra, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue id dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1106/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19 Umesh Rohra No.2, M/S. Umesh Electro Marketix Ito Ward-5(2)(1) G.R. Lane Sp Road Cross Vs. Bangalore Bengaluru 560 002 Karnataka Pan No.Acopr3873J Appellant Respondent Co No.4/Bang/2024 (Arising Out Ita No.1106/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Umesh Rohra Vs. Ito Ward-5(2)(1) Bengaluru 560 002 Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Ravishankar, A.R. Respondent By : Shri V. Parithivel, D.R.

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 199

that assessment order to be restored. Total Tax effect Rs.1,87,98,903/- 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in the cross objection: “1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is just and proper and the same requires to be upheld under

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 1(3)1, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Grindwell Norton Limited, Leela Business Park Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed, in aforesaid terms

ITA 785/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai [in short “the CIT(A)”] dated 19.12.2023 for assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has filed cross objections in appeal filed by the Department. 2. The Department has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds:- C.O. 54/Mum/2024 Grindwell Norton Limited ... South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT, 130 taxmann.com 178(SC). 9. The learned AR further submitted that in the cross objections the assessee has raised a ground with respect to disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Short prayer of the assessee is that disallowance be restricted

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Idea Payments Bank Limited (Formerly Known As Idea Mobile Commerce Services), Mumbai

In the result, cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 4667/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand

Section 270A

Idea Payments Bank Limited ORDER PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (AM) 1. ITA No. 4667/MUM/2023 and CO No. 16/MUM/2024 are appeal by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the order dated 30.10.2023 by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining ... A.Y.2017-18. 2. The appeal and the cross objection are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The entire quarrel revolves around the levy of Penalty under section 270A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 4. Since grounds taken in the cross

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Enterprisedb Software India Private Limited, Pune

ITA 989/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 989/Pun/2023 & Co No. 008/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Sonal Sonkavde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(2)Section 40

learned Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune [in short ‘AO’]. The assessee also preferred a cross objection against the appeal of the Revenue. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 8 DCIT Vs Enterprises Software India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 989/PUN/2023 & Co No. 008/PUN/2024 2. Tersely stated facts ... Taxman 160 (SC)/[1993] 201 ITR 391 (SC)? 2.5 On the other hands the assessee raised as many as eleven ground in its cross objection. Though the said grounds prima-facie are inconsonance with rule 8 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 however for the ready reference are reproduced herein