← 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

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

In the result, Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 244/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 243 & 244/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax, Producers Company Limited, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aajcs 7398 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) Co Nos. 18 & 19/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.243 & 244/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 581E

passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessee has raised Cross Objections for the AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the issues involved in both the appeals of the Revenue are identical, these appeals ... Revenue is partly allowed statistical purposes. CO Nos. 18 & 19/Viz/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 243 & 244/Viz/2020) (Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) 19. These Cross Objections are filed by the assessee. The assessee has raised the following grounds of Cross Objection

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

In the result, Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 243/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 243 & 244/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax, Producers Company Limited, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aajcs 7398 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) Co Nos. 18 & 19/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.243 & 244/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 581E

passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessee has raised Cross Objections for the AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the issues involved in both the appeals of the Revenue are identical, these appeals ... Revenue is partly allowed statistical purposes. CO Nos. 18 & 19/Viz/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 243 & 244/Viz/2020) (Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) 19. These Cross Objections are filed by the assessee. The assessee has raised the following grounds of Cross Objection

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kochi [CIT(A)] vide a common order dated 10.12.2019, with corresponding Cross Objections (COs.) by the assessee. 2. The sole issue arising in the instant appeals, projecting though several grounds, is the maintainability of the reassessment proceedings, found as not maintainable by the ld.CIT

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kochi [CIT(A)] vide a common order dated 10.12.2019, with corresponding Cross Objections (COs.) by the assessee. 2. The sole issue arising in the instant appeals, projecting though several grounds, is the maintainability of the reassessment proceedings, found as not maintainable by the ld.CIT

ACIT(CC)-6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2683/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2683/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit(Cc)-6(4) बिधम/ Indiabulls Housing Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Finance Ltd Vs. Air India Building, Nariman M-62 & 63 1St Floor, Point, Mumbai-400021. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci3612A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Shri Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Hemankumar Chimanlal Leuva
Section 14A

principle. However, pointed out that assessee have not received copy of Form-36 along with grounds of appeal and conveyed his desire to file Cross Objection (CO) against the action of Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of the direction given by him regarding verification by AO about quantification

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen-Circle 4(1), Mumbai vs. Mr Rashmin Girdharilal Rughani, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross

ITA 2143/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the Revenue and cross These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objections by the objections by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated assessee are directed against two separate orders assessee are directed ... Since, the issue in dispute involved in both 19. Since, the issue in dispute involved in both these appeals and cross these appeals and cross-objections, is are common the are common therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated were heard together and disposed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen-Circle 4(1), Mumbai vs. Mr Rashmin Girdharilal Rughani, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross

ITA 2142/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the Revenue and cross These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objections by the objections by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated assessee are directed against two separate orders assessee are directed ... Since, the issue in dispute involved in both 19. Since, the issue in dispute involved in both these appeals and cross these appeals and cross-objections, is are common the are common therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated were heard together and disposed

DCIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. Overseas Exports, Mumbai

ITA 1991/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 147

No.99/Mum/20223(Assessment Year: 2012-13) O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objection filed 1. by the Assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13 arise from the order, dated 29/03/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income ... Ld.CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 2.1. The Assessee has raised following grounds of cross objection: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has error in not considering the facts that the Ld. AO has not provided any material evidence and cross

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1781/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

assessment years 2011 assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19. In assessment year 2015 19. In assessment year 2015- 16, the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order ... issue in dispute involved i the Ld. CIT(A). The issue in dispute involved in these appeals and n these appeals and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1780/MUM/2023[2016-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2016-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

assessment years 2011 assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19. In assessment year 2015 19. In assessment year 2015- 16, the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order ... issue in dispute involved i the Ld. CIT(A). The issue in dispute involved in these appeals and n these appeals and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1779/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

assessment years 2011 assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19. In assessment year 2015 19. In assessment year 2015- 16, the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order ... issue in dispute involved i the Ld. CIT(A). The issue in dispute involved in these appeals and n these appeals and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1764/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

assessment years 2011 assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19. In assessment year 2015 19. In assessment year 2015- 16, the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order ... issue in dispute involved i the Ld. CIT(A). The issue in dispute involved in these appeals and n these appeals and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1763/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

assessment years 2011 assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19. In assessment year 2015 19. In assessment year 2015- 16, the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order ... issue in dispute involved i the Ld. CIT(A). The issue in dispute involved in these appeals and n these appeals and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1762/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

assessment years 2011 assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19. In assessment year 2015 19. In assessment year 2015- 16, the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order ... issue in dispute involved i the Ld. CIT(A). The issue in dispute involved in these appeals and n these appeals and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1761/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

assessment years 2011 assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19. In assessment year 2015 19. In assessment year 2015- 16, the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order ... issue in dispute involved i the Ld. CIT(A). The issue in dispute involved in these appeals and n these appeals and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard

ACIT-2(2)(1), Mmumbai vs. M/S. Jics Logistic Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year the appeal of the revenue for assessment year

ITA 1760/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 &

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh

assessment years 2011 assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19. In assessment year 2015 19. In assessment year 2015- 16, the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order of the assessee has preferred cross objection against the order ... issue in dispute involved i the Ld. CIT(A). The issue in dispute involved in these appeals and n these appeals and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard together and cross objection being similar, same have been heard

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai vs. Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

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 ... 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 11. In the 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

Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

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 ... 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 11. In the 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

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Taurian Iron & Steel Co.P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3672/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkeyamarjit Singhdcit 4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Taurian Iron & Steel R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Company Limitd Aayakar Bhavan, 302-A, Poonam Chamber, Mumbai – 400013 Dr. Annie Besand Road, Worli, Delphi, Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact4814A Respondent .. Appellant Appellant By : K.C. Selvamani Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 14.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2023

For Appellant: K.C. SelvamaniFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

P a g e | 1 DCIT-4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Taurian Iron & Steel Company Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Posco Engineering and Construction India Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1137/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G S Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri P N Barnwal, CIT(DR)
Section 36(1)Section 68

196/Del/2022 Posco Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee arise out of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi (“CIT(A)”) dated 23.03.2022 pertaining ... erred by deleting the disallowance of Rs.31,17,561/- u/s 36(1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The grounds of Cross Objections filed by the assessee read as under: “1. The department in 2nd 3rd and 4th "Grounds of Appeal" had twisted CIT's (Appeal) decision