← 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, 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 4464/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

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.4463 & 4463/Del./2019 CO Nos.131 & 132/Del./22019 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 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 4463/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

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.4463 & 4463/Del./2019 CO Nos.131 & 132/Del./22019 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, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vrindavan Tubes Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5114/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.” Grounds In Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee. “ That On The Facts Of The Case & Under The Law, Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Sustaining The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs. 6,95,086/- Being The Provision Of Excise Duty On Finished Goods.” 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Filed Return Of The Assessment Year 2011-12 Declaring An Income Of Rs. 34,40,837/- & The Same Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, An Assessment Order

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Appeals)-9, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 30/03/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12 as well as the assessee has also filed Cross Objections. Grounds of appeal of the Revenue are as under: Page 1 of 12 DCIT vs. Vrindavan Tubes ... amend, modify, alter or add any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” Grounds in Cross Objection filed by the assessee. “ That on the facts of the case and under the law, Ld. CIT(A) had erred in sustaining the addition/disallowance

ACIT (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S. Barbarik Project Ltd., Surajpur

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 70/RPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Rpr/2021 & Cross Objection No.20/Rpr/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.70/Rpr/2021) िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Acit (Central) M/S. Barbarik Project Ltd., Bilaspur Ward No.13, Nehru Park, Surajpur (C.G.) [Pan: Aadcb 4662 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri S. R. Rao, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2023

For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

खोडिपया, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.70/RPR/2021 And Cross Objection No.20/RPR/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.70/RPR/2021) िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 v. ACIT (Central) M/s. Barbarik Project Ltd., Bilaspur Ward No.13, Nehru Park ... घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This captioned appeal along with Cross Objection filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal for Assessment Year 2010-11 dated

Jt CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blejt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Central Circle – 3(1) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/Mum/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 498/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08)] Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani V. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bharat Kumar Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

Date of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal and cross objection are filed by revenue and assessee respectively against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated ... dismissed legal grounds raised before him. 9. Aggrieved with the above order of the Ld.CIT(A), revenue is in appeal and assessee is in cross objection before us. 10. At the outset, we observe that during the course of hearing, Assessee filed additional grounds of appeal which is reproduced

DCIT-CC-27, New Delhi vs. Anshika Consultants Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 35/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Cross Objection

Section 115JSection 136(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

Circle-27 Vs. 305, 3rd Floor New Delhi Bhanot Corner Pamposh Enclave Greater Kailash-I New Delhi-110 048 PAN-AAACA 0423A (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.76/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) Dy. CIT M/s Anshika Central Circle-27 Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New Delhi 305, 3rd Floor Bhanot Corner Pamposh ... Appeals)-31, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 27/10/2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16. Grounds taken in this appeal as well as Cross Objection are as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai vs. Neepa Real Estates Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1041/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Years: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Neepa Real Estates Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., 12Th Floor, Hallmark Central Circle -6(1), Room No. 1905, Business Plaza, Vs. 19Th Floor, Sang Dnyaneshwar Marg, Air India Building, Near Gurunanak Hospital, Nariman Point, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaacn1884C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 40Section 68

Neepa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: For the sake of brevity aforesaid appeal and cross objections emanated from same impugned order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] are being taken ... Revenue) and the cross objector M/s. Neepa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) by filing the present appeal and cross objections respectively sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and cross

ITA 5425/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 7

Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of pronouncement: 12.09.2023 ORDER Captioned appeals by the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee arise out of two separate orders, both dated 02.06.2015, of 2 ITA Nos. 5424 & 5425/Del/2015 and C.O. Nos. 157 & 158/Del/2019 learned ... decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in granting relief to the assessee in the matter of various additions made by the Assessing Officer, in the cross objections, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue of maintainability of the present appeals of the Revenue. 3. We have heard Shri Ashwani Kumar, Advocate

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and cross

ITA 5424/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 7

Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of pronouncement: 12.09.2023 ORDER Captioned appeals by the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee arise out of two separate orders, both dated 02.06.2015, of 2 ITA Nos. 5424 & 5425/Del/2015 and C.O. Nos. 157 & 158/Del/2019 learned ... decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in granting relief to the assessee in the matter of various additions made by the Assessing Officer, in the cross objections, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue of maintainability of the present appeals of the Revenue. 3. We have heard Shri Ashwani Kumar, Advocate

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Cenral Circle 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bhanderi Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1369/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

hearing : 11.09.2023 Pronouncement of order : 25.09.2023 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 2012-13 arise from the order, dated 02/02/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner ... documents not produced during the course of original assessment but found in the course of search". 2.1. The Assessee has raised following grounds of cross objection: 2 CO No.64/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Calyon Bank, Mumbai

ITA 4259/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

assessee and the Revenue is partly allowed. C.O NO.140/MUM/2014 – A.Y. 2009-10 – BYASSESSEE: 44. The solitary issue raised by assessee in its Cross Objections read as under: “ Without prejudice to its stand that the interest paid by the India branch of the Bank to its Head Office (‘HO’) and overseas ... interest received by the India branch from its HO and OB may not be taxable.” 45. The issue raised by the assessee in cross objections is corresponding to ground of appeal no.3 in appeal by the Revenue. Since ground no.3 of appeal by the Department is dismissed, the cross objections

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3103/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

assessee and the Revenue is partly allowed. C.O NO.140/MUM/2014 – A.Y. 2009-10 – BYASSESSEE: 44. The solitary issue raised by assessee in its Cross Objections read as under: “ Without prejudice to its stand that the interest paid by the India branch of the Bank to its Head Office (‘HO’) and overseas ... interest received by the India branch from its HO and OB may not be taxable.” 45. The issue raised by the assessee in cross objections is corresponding to ground of appeal no.3 in appeal by the Revenue. Since ground no.3 of appeal by the Department is dismissed, the cross objections

Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporation & Investments Bank, Mumbai

ITA 1868/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

assessee and the Revenue is partly allowed. C.O NO.140/MUM/2014 – A.Y. 2009-10 – BYASSESSEE: 44. The solitary issue raised by assessee in its Cross Objections read as under: “ Without prejudice to its stand that the interest paid by the India branch of the Bank to its Head Office (‘HO’) and overseas ... interest received by the India branch from its HO and OB may not be taxable.” 45. The issue raised by the assessee in cross objections is corresponding to ground of appeal no.3 in appeal by the Revenue. Since ground no.3 of appeal by the Department is dismissed, the cross objections

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investments Bank, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 1504/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

assessee and the Revenue is partly allowed. C.O NO.140/MUM/2014 – A.Y. 2009-10 – BYASSESSEE: 44. The solitary issue raised by assessee in its Cross Objections read as under: “ Without prejudice to its stand that the interest paid by the India branch of the Bank to its Head Office (‘HO’) and overseas ... interest received by the India branch from its HO and OB may not be taxable.” 45. The issue raised by the assessee in cross objections is corresponding to ground of appeal no.3 in appeal by the Revenue. Since ground no.3 of appeal by the Department is dismissed, the cross objections

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investments Bank, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 1503/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

assessee and the Revenue is partly allowed. C.O NO.140/MUM/2014 – A.Y. 2009-10 – BYASSESSEE: 44. The solitary issue raised by assessee in its Cross Objections read as under: “ Without prejudice to its stand that the interest paid by the India branch of the Bank to its Head Office (‘HO’) and overseas ... interest received by the India branch from its HO and OB may not be taxable.” 45. The issue raised by the assessee in cross objections is corresponding to ground of appeal no.3 in appeal by the Revenue. Since ground no.3 of appeal by the Department is dismissed, the cross objections

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Calyon Bank, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

assessee and the Revenue is partly allowed. C.O NO.140/MUM/2014 – A.Y. 2009-10 – BYASSESSEE: 44. The solitary issue raised by assessee in its Cross Objections read as under: “ Without prejudice to its stand that the interest paid by the India branch of the Bank to its Head Office (‘HO’) and overseas ... interest received by the India branch from its HO and OB may not be taxable.” 45. The issue raised by the assessee in cross objections is corresponding to ground of appeal no.3 in appeal by the Revenue. Since ground no.3 of appeal by the Department is dismissed, the cross objections

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank ( Formerly Calyon Bank), Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 9071/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.9071/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.3103/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1503/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1504/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaccc-3872-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038 ......"ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.4259/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2007-08) आअसं.1483/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1868/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2009-10) The Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(2) Mumbai, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400 038. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank), 11Th Floor, Hoechst House

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate gwithFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. AR &
Section 143(3)

assessee and the Revenue is partly allowed. C.O NO.140/MUM/2014 – A.Y. 2009-10 – BYASSESSEE: 44. The solitary issue raised by assessee in its Cross Objections read as under: “ Without prejudice to its stand that the interest paid by the India branch of the Bank to its Head Office (‘HO’) and overseas ... interest received by the India branch from its HO and OB may not be taxable.” 45. The issue raised by the assessee in cross objections is corresponding to ground of appeal no.3 in appeal by the Revenue. Since ground no.3 of appeal by the Department is dismissed, the cross objections

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Authority Compqny, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

Officer, for fresh round of ALP ascertainment proceedings, as prayed by the learned Departmental Representative. The plea of the assessee, as raised in the cross objections, therefore, merits acceptance. Whether there is a DAPE or not, there are no additional profits to be brought to tax as a result

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Aryan Builders and Developers Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

ITA 201/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Singhania, CA, &For Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

Officer-2(1), Vs M/s.Aryan Builders and- Raipur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Near Shitla Mandir, Machhi Talab, Gudiyari, Raipur PAN No. : AAJCA 3942 M AND Cross Objection No.09/RPR/2022) (Arising out of ITA No.201/RPR/2018) (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/s.Aryan Builders and – Vs ITO-2(1), Raipur Developers Pvt. Ltd., Near Shitla Mandir ... appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Raipur, dated 05.07.2018 for the assessment year 2012-2013. The assessee has also filed cross objection. 2. The revenue has filed revised grounds of appeal vide letter dated 14.12.2022, which read as under:- 1. "Whether on points

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat vs. Kush Corporation, Surat

In the result, grounds of cross objection raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 357/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 93 & 94/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 133ASection 254(1)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These three appeals by the revenue for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and cross objection by the assessee in e appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... with similar observation. ITA No. 357/Srt/2022 by revenue and CO No. 01/Srt/2023 for AY 2016-17 by assessee. 16. The assessee in is its Cross Objections (C.O.) has raised following grounds of appeal; (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case was well as law on the subject