← 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, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated Into M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd.), Ludhiana

ITA 8316/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.8316/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dcit Hero Investment Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(1), Vs. (Now Amalgamated Into M/S New Delhi. Hero Motocorp Ltd.), G.T. Road, Hero Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab. Pan No.Aaach4072N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 30/Del/2022 (In I.T.A No.8316/Del/2018) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Hero Investment Pvt. Ltd. Dcit (Now Amalgamated Into M/S Vs. Circle-11(1), Hero Motocorp Ltd.), New Delhi. G.T. Road, Hero Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab. Pan No.Aaach4072N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

amalgamated into M/s New Delhi. Hero Motocorp Ltd.), G.T. Road, Hero Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab. PAN No.AAACH4072N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 30/Del/2022 (In I.T.A No.8316/Del/2018) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Hero Investment Pvt. Ltd. DCIT (Now amalgamated into M/s Vs. Circle-11(1), Hero Motocorp ... षणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on I.T.A. No. 8316/Del/2018 & CO No.30/Del/2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.M. GARG, J.M. The appeal and cross objection were filed by the Revenue and assessee respectively against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ludhiana dated

Asst CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chiripal Poly Films Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 258/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

hearing : 14.07.2023 Pronouncement of order : 11.10.2023 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 2014-15 arise from the order, dated 03/09/2019, passed by the Ld. Commissioner ... above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored.” 2.1. The Assessee has raised following grounds of cross objection: “1.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Hon'ble ITAT may direct the Ld. Assessing officer to compute the correct total

ITO, Hisar vs. Sh. Sant Singh Prop., Hisar

ITA 2547/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 143CSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 54BSection 54B(2)

craves leave to add, amend or modify the grounds of appeal subsequently, before the appeal is disposed off.” 4.1 The assessee has also filed cross objections supporting the findings of ld. CIT(A). 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. Ld. DR primarily submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has failed

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. M G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4462/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

ORDER 2 ITA Nos.4461 & 4462/Del./2019 CO Nos.129 & 130/Del./2019 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee against the common order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur dated 25.02.2019 pertaining to the assessment years ... common for AYs 2009-10 to 2013-14. 2. Since the issues are common and connected the appeals and cross objections were heard together and these are being consolidated and disposed off by this common order. 3. Since grounds are similar we are referring grounds

DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida vs. M G Metalloys P.Ltd, Noida

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4461/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 68

ORDER 2 ITA Nos.4461 & 4462/Del./2019 CO Nos.129 & 130/Del./2019 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These are appeals by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee against the common order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur dated 25.02.2019 pertaining to the assessment years ... common for AYs 2009-10 to 2013-14. 2. Since the issues are common and connected the appeals and cross objections were heard together and these are being consolidated and disposed off by this common order. 3. Since grounds are similar we are referring grounds

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly the Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2892/Del/2015 is dismissed

ITA 2892/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: the hon'ble Appellate Tribunal to the finding of the Id. Commissioner (Appeal), on the basis of remand report furnished by the Assessing Officer during the course of appeal proceedings, that the Assessing Officer of the searched person had not recorded satisfaction note to the effect that the seized documents did not belong to his assessee, i.e., the person searched upon, but belonged to another person, i.e., the instant assessee, and, therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue is liable to

Section 153CSection 68Section 69

2892/Del/2015 & C.O. 106/Del/2016 Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM The instant appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee are against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A”, for short], dated ... case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deciding the case without going into merits of the case.” Grounds of Cross Objection of the Assessee are as under:- 1. That in the absence of challenge by the revenue in its appeal before the hon'ble Appellate Tribunal

Rakesh Janghu, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

ITA 379/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

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

Vihar Gurgaon-122 017 PAN-AHYPK 5280B (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 13 ITA Nos.379/Del/2023 & Ors C.O. Nos.191 &192/Del/2023 Rakesh Janghu vs. DCIT Cross Objection Nos.191 & 192/Del/2022 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2675 & 2644/Del/2022) (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2018-19 & 2019-20) Rakesh Janghu Dy. Commissioner of E-2374, New Palam Income ... assessee challenging the order of CIT(A) dated 13/09/2022. 2. The Grounds taken in the above appeals as well as Cross Objections are as under: ITA No.ITA No.379/Del/2023 by the assessee (A.Y 2020-21) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Rakesh Janghu, Gurgaon

ITA 2675/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

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

Vihar Gurgaon-122 017 PAN-AHYPK 5280B (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 13 ITA Nos.379/Del/2023 & Ors C.O. Nos.191 &192/Del/2023 Rakesh Janghu vs. DCIT Cross Objection Nos.191 & 192/Del/2022 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2675 & 2644/Del/2022) (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2018-19 & 2019-20) Rakesh Janghu Dy. Commissioner of E-2374, New Palam Income ... assessee challenging the order of CIT(A) dated 13/09/2022. 2. The Grounds taken in the above appeals as well as Cross Objections are as under: ITA No.ITA No.379/Del/2023 by the assessee (A.Y 2020-21) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Rakesh Janghu, Gurgaon

ITA 2644/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

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

Vihar Gurgaon-122 017 PAN-AHYPK 5280B (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 1 of 13 ITA Nos.379/Del/2023 & Ors C.O. Nos.191 &192/Del/2023 Rakesh Janghu vs. DCIT Cross Objection Nos.191 & 192/Del/2022 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2675 & 2644/Del/2022) (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2018-19 & 2019-20) Rakesh Janghu Dy. Commissioner of E-2374, New Palam Income ... assessee challenging the order of CIT(A) dated 13/09/2022. 2. The Grounds taken in the above appeals as well as Cross Objections are as under: ITA No.ITA No.379/Del/2023 by the assessee (A.Y 2020-21) “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. vs. M/S Syndicate Bank, Udupi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 337/PAN/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.337/Pan/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Department, Tax Cell, Head Officer, Manipal. Pan : Aaccs4699E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.01/Pan/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.337/Pan/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Syndicate Bank), F.M. Wing, Head Office, 112, J. C. Road, Bengaluru- 560002. Pan : Aaacc6106G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan Smt. S. Lalitha R. Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthanFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244A

directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangalore [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 20.09.2016 for the assessment year 2002-03. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the appeal of the Revenue. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a nationalized ... Revenue stands dismissed. 6 C.O. No.01/PAN/2023 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. C.O. No.01/PAN/2023 – By Assessee : 10. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed, as the relief sought by the assessee that the assessee company is not liable to tax on book

ACIT(OSD), Ward-22(1), New Delhi vs. S.S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 3246/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit(Osd), Vs. S. S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd, Ward-22(1), A-6/3, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi Shahdara, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1928C Co No. 54/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 3246/Del/2019) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit(Osd), Vs. S. S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd, Ward-22(1), A-6/3, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi Shahdara, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1928C Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Bindal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/10/2023 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: 1. The Appeal In Ita No. 3246/Del/2019 Filed By The Revenue & Co No. 54/Del/2023 387/Del/2021 Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2008-09, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Cit(A)‟, In Short] In Appeal No. 10208/16-17 Dated 08.02.2019 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 09.03.2016 By The Assessing Officer, Ito, Ward-22(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee although the assessee has not carried out any manufacturing activity.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in cross objection:- “1. The CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the grounds taken regarding reopening of the assessment by issuing notice ... failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment.” 4. At the outset, we find that the cross objection preferred by the assessee is delayed by 1168 days. The ld AR submitted that Form 36 filed by the Revenue was not served

Pradip Burman, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-71(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6725/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2007-08 Pradip Burman Dcit 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan Vs Circle – 70 (1) 10, Rouse Avenue New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aaapb7429C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit Pradip Burman 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan Circle – 70 (1) Vs New Delhi 10, Rouse Avenue New Delhi Pan No.Aaapb7429C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 271

appeal by the assessee preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi dated 19.09.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08 and cross objection NO.199/Del/2018 is the cross objection of the assessee preferred against the order of the CIT(A). 2. Since the underlying facts in these appeals ... therefore, direct the AO to delete the penalty so levied. The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed. Cross Objection No.199/Del/2018 (In ITA No. 4461/Del/2018 A.Y. 2006-07) 11. The cross objection becomes infructuous. [N.K. BILLAIYA] [ASTHA CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated

ACIT, Circle-70(1), New Delhi vs. Pradip Burman, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4461/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2007-08 Pradip Burman Dcit 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan Vs Circle – 70 (1) 10, Rouse Avenue New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aaapb7429C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit Pradip Burman 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan Circle – 70 (1) Vs New Delhi 10, Rouse Avenue New Delhi Pan No.Aaapb7429C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 271

appeal by the assessee preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi dated 19.09.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08 and cross objection NO.199/Del/2018 is the cross objection of the assessee preferred against the order of the CIT(A). 2. Since the underlying facts in these appeals ... therefore, direct the AO to delete the penalty so levied. The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed. Cross Objection No.199/Del/2018 (In ITA No. 4461/Del/2018 A.Y. 2006-07) 11. The cross objection becomes infructuous. [N.K. BILLAIYA] [ASTHA CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated

DCIT, Circle-1, Kalyan vs. M/S Asb International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1541/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. CO. No. 65/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2009-10 Regarding the cross objection. 11. The assessee has filed cross objection for challenging the validity of the reopening of assessment ... ITAT (supra), since we have adjudicated the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act on merit in favour of the assessee, therefore, the cross objection filed by the assessee in respect of reopening assessment has became infructuous and we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate the same

ITO, Ward- 1(4), Shamli vs. Cane Development Council, Shamli

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, consequently, the cross objections become superfulous

ITA 7133/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 7133/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ito, Vs. M/S. Cane Development Ward-1(4), Council Distt. Shamli, Palika Bazar, Shiv Ganj Mandi, Shamli Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aaalc0276E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(20)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)

None has appeared for the assessee at the time of hearing, however, there are written submission as received in support of the cross objections. 3. Ld. DR has supported the findings of Ld. AO. 4. It comes up that Ld. AO had made addition on the basis that ... otherwise was not of consequence. The grounds raised by the Revenue have no substance and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, consequently, the cross objections become superfulous. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2023. (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-27.09.2023 *Binita, SR.P.S

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhaptnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 67/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No. 396/Viz/2014) is partly allowed: C.O. No. 26/Viz/2022 (By Revenue) (AY:2010-11) 38. This Cross Objection is raised by the Revenue against the additional ground raised by the assessee. Since the additional ground raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No. 396/Viz/2014 ... pressed by the assessee, the adjudication of the Cross Objection raised by the Revenue with respect to allowability of additional ground becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue in its CO are dismissed as infructuous. 41 39. In the result, CO raised by the Revenue is dismissed

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 49/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No. 396/Viz/2014) is partly allowed: C.O. No. 26/Viz/2022 (By Revenue) (AY:2010-11) 38. This Cross Objection is raised by the Revenue against the additional ground raised by the assessee. Since the additional ground raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No. 396/Viz/2014 ... pressed by the assessee, the adjudication of the Cross Objection raised by the Revenue with respect to allowability of additional ground becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue in its CO are dismissed as infructuous. 41 39. In the result, CO raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 236/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No. 396/Viz/2014) is partly allowed: C.O. No. 26/Viz/2022 (By Revenue) (AY:2010-11) 38. This Cross Objection is raised by the Revenue against the additional ground raised by the assessee. Since the additional ground raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No. 396/Viz/2014 ... pressed by the assessee, the adjudication of the Cross Objection raised by the Revenue with respect to allowability of additional ground becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue in its CO are dismissed as infructuous. 41 39. In the result, CO raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 235/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No. 396/Viz/2014) is partly allowed: C.O. No. 26/Viz/2022 (By Revenue) (AY:2010-11) 38. This Cross Objection is raised by the Revenue against the additional ground raised by the assessee. Since the additional ground raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No. 396/Viz/2014 ... pressed by the assessee, the adjudication of the Cross Objection raised by the Revenue with respect to allowability of additional ground becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue in its CO are dismissed as infructuous. 41 39. In the result, CO raised by the Revenue is dismissed

The Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Asst. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 325/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No. 396/Viz/2014) is partly allowed: C.O. No. 26/Viz/2022 (By Revenue) (AY:2010-11) 38. This Cross Objection is raised by the Revenue against the additional ground raised by the assessee. Since the additional ground raised by the assessee in its appeal ITA No. 396/Viz/2014 ... pressed by the assessee, the adjudication of the Cross Objection raised by the Revenue with respect to allowability of additional ground becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue in its CO are dismissed as infructuous. 41 39. In the result, CO raised by the Revenue is dismissed