← 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

Assistant Comm. of Income Tax Circle-3, Thane vs. Rajmohan Appalacharya N. Chakravarty, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the cross objection is disposed off as not maintainable

ITA 2120/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Rajmohan Appalacharya N. Tax, Circle-3, Thane. Chakravarty (Appellant) 5/52, Garden Estate, Opp. Pokhran Road No. 1, Thane 400 601. (Respondent) Pan : Abzpn2092B

For Appellant: Shri S.V. ApteFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(2)Section 69

appeal accordingly stands dismissed. 8 ITA 2120/Mum/2023 & CO 118/MUM/2023 Rajmohan Appalacharya N. Chakravarty 23. In this case, the respondent has filed a cross objection. We inquired with the learned counsel for respondent as to which part of the order passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee is aggrieved with ... learned counsel submitted that assessee is not aggrieved by any part of the order passed by learned CIT(A) and the cross objection is filed only to support the said order. It is necessary to note that filing of cross objection in order to support an order is neither contemplated

ACIT, Circle- 2, Noida vs. Presidency Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6657/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Baranwal, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

Date of Hearing : 15.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2024 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The above captioned appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed towards the very same order of the CIT(A) - I, Noida dated 28.06.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Since ... appeal and cross objections were heard together, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Grievances of the Revenue read as under: “1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made by AO without

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

आदेश / ORDER संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal by the revenue and the corresponding cross objections by the assessee have been preferred against the order dated 30.05.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [hereinafter referred

DCIT, CC 5(2), Central Range -5, Mumbai vs. Manubhai Gems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee is rejected

ITA 659/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Sh. Rahul
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 69A

India 5/6/7, Megh, Opp. HSBC, Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Factory Lane Corner, Borivali, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai- 400092 PAN : AAACW7711P Appellant) : Respondent) Cross Objection No. 130/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Manubhai Gems Private Ltd. DCIT-CC 5(2), Central Range-5, 5/6/7, Megh, Opp. HSBC, Room No. 1906, Air India Building ... /Mum/2023 Manubhai Gems Private Ltd. O R D E R Per Padmavathy. S, AM : This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objections (CO) by the assessee are against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated

ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi vs. Placid Buildwell P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6744/DEL/2018[ 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Baranwal, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Date of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2024 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The above captioned appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed towards the very same order of the CIT(A) - XXV, New Delhi dated 02.08.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Since ... appeal and cross objections were heard together, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Grievances of the Revenue read as under: "(1) Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

ACIT (TDS), Gurgaon vs. Artemis Medicare Service Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 554/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit (Tds), Vs. Artemis Medicares Services Ltd, 414/1, 4Th Floor, Dda Gurgaon Commercial Complex, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafca0130M

For Appellant: Ms. Shaily Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 192Section 194JSection 201(1)

BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. This appeal in ITA No. 554/Del/2016 is filed by the revenue and the cross objection No. 176/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 arises out of the order by ld CIT(A)- ITA No. 554/Del/2016 &CO No. 176/Del/2016 Artemis Medicares Services Ltd 1, Gurgaon in appeal No. 74/14-15 ... DCIT, TDS, Circle, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 15 days in filing of Cross Objections by the assessee before us. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the Cross

ACIT - 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Properties Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3002/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharygodrej Properties Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(2) M/S Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 455, 4 Th Floor, Mistry Llp, Esplanade Aayakar Bhavan, House, 2Nd Floor, 29, M.K. Road, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 For, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg3995M Appellant .. Respondent Acit-14(1)(2) Vs. Godrej Properties Ltd, Room No. 455, 4 Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Godrej One, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Pirojshanagar, Estern Road, Mumbai – 400020 Express Highway, Vikroli (E) Mumbai – 400079 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacg3995M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Yasmin Dastur Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 28.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2024

For Appellant: Yasmin DasturFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

moto disallowance of Rs.83,82,742/- as per comparative table extracted in preceding para number 11. However now the assessee by filing the cross objections contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the amount of exempt income

Godrej Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14 (1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 2994/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Yasmin DasturFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

moto disallowance of Rs.83,82,742/- as per comparative table extracted in preceding para number 11. However now the assessee by filing the cross objections contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the amount of exempt income

ACIT Central Cirlce-26, New Delhi vs. Noida Cyber Park Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2136/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-26, DGL006, Ground Floor, New Delhi. DLF Galleria, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi – 110 091. PAN: AAACF5292Q Cross Objections No.103 & 104/Del/2023 (ITAs No.2135 & 2136/Del/2022) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Noida Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, DGL006, Ground Floor, Central Circle ... hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the ACIT, Circle 18(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO'). The assessee has filed Cross Objections for both the assessment years. 2. Heard and perused the record. The Ld. Representatives have fundamentally relied upon the orders of Ld. Tax Authorities

ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Noida Cyber Park Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed except with regard to the issue restored to the files of ld

ITA 2135/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-26, DGL006, Ground Floor, New Delhi. DLF Galleria, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi – 110 091. PAN: AAACF5292Q Cross Objections No.103 & 104/Del/2023 (ITAs No.2135 & 2136/Del/2022) Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Noida Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, DGL006, Ground Floor, Central Circle ... hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Circle 18(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO’). The assessee has filed Cross Objections for both the assessment years. 2. Heard and perused the record. The Ld. Representatives have fundamentally relied upon the orders of Ld. Tax Authorities

The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ina Bearing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 540/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R

Date of Hearing 18.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12.01.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by the Department and Cross Objections filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Pune ... grounds of appeal either before or during the course of appellate proceedings.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in its Cross Objections:- C.O. No. 02/Ahd/2023(A.Y. 2013-14):- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 13, Pune ["CIT(A)"] erred in fact

The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Ina Bearing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 539/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R

Date of Hearing 18.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12.01.2024 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by the Department and Cross Objections filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Pune ... grounds of appeal either before or during the course of appellate proceedings.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in its Cross Objections:- C.O. No. 02/Ahd/2023(A.Y. 2013-14):- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 13, Pune ["CIT(A)"] erred in fact

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Ritesh Jain, Indore

ITA 794/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Date of Hearing 23.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12 .01.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: These appeals by the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are directed against the order dated 02.07.2018 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II, Indore arising from reassessment for A.Y.2010-11 ... cross objection the assesse has raised legal grounds challenging the validity of the order passed by the AO u/s 147 for non-fulfillment of jurisdictional conditions of issuing notice u/s 143(2) as well as passing reassessment order without giving a reasonable period to the assessee to challenge the order

Anuj Chaudhary, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 3453/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL

DCIT (E), Circle- Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad vs. Sewa- Thdc, Rishikesh

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross

ITA 3425/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 11(2)Section 127Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2

Date of Pronouncement:11.01.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Dehradun dated 16.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Revenue has raised the following ... cancelled and the other of the AO be restored.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in Cross objection: “1. That the Ld. C.I.T.(A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the following legal grounds of appeal which goes to the root

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2024 ORDER Per Bench: The present appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee have been filed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi. 2. The common grounds raised ... Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . 23. In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4652/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2024 ORDER Per Bench: The present appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee have been filed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi. 2. The common grounds raised ... Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . 23. In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4651/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2024 ORDER Per Bench: The present appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee have been filed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi. 2. The common grounds raised ... Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . 23. In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court

DCIT, New Delhi vs. I Energizer Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 4650/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2024 ORDER Per Bench: The present appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee have been filed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi. 2. The common grounds raised ... Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . 23. In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Iservices Investments Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

ITA 5396/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2024 ORDER Per Bench: The present appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee have been filed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi. 2. The common grounds raised ... Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . 23. In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court