“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACIT, Circle-2, Bikaner vs. Naresh Kumar Jindal, Pilibanga

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 20/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

JAYANTBHAI, AM 2 ITA No. 20-Jodh-2019 & CO No. 6-Jodh-2019 Naresh Kumar Jindal This appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Bikaner [hereinafter referred ... Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 31.03.2016. 2. Since the issues involved in this appeal filed by the revenue and cross objections of the assessee relates the assessee for the same assessment year and the grounds of the appeal and CO are interconnected were heard together with

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Met Trade India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3671/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Dcit, Circle-6(1), New Delhi M/S. Met Trade India Ltd., 138-139, Near Bharti Petrol Pump, Vs. Main Road, Ghazipur, Delhi 110096 Pan Aaacm 8484 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 317/Del/2012 In Ita No. 3671/Del/212 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Met Trade India Ltd., The Dcit, Circle-6(1), New Delhi 138-139, Near Bharti Petrol Pump, Main Road, Ghazipur, Delhi 110096 Vs. Pan Aaacm 8484 F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Ms. Samita Singh, Sr. Dr For Assessee : Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 Corrigendum Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. Above Captioned Appeal Of Revenue & Cross Objection Of Assessee Have Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Ix, New Delhi Dated 28.03.2012 For 2006-07. 2. The Order Was Passed In Revenue Appeal In Ita No. 3671/Del/2012 For Ay 2006- 07 On 25.07.2023 Dismissing The Appeal Of Revenue In Limine With A Liberty To File It Again To Seek Remedial Measures In Accordance With Law. Co No. 317/Del/2012

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Samita Singh, Sr. DR

Abhishek Mathur, CA Date of Hearing : 11.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 CORRIGENDUM ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. Above captioned appeal of revenue and cross objection of assessee have been filed against the order of CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi dated 28.03.2012 for 2006-07. 2. The order was passed ... revenue in limine with a liberty to file it again to seek remedial measures in accordance with law. CO No. 317/Del/2012 3. The cross objection of assessee remained un-adjudicated in the said order therefore this corrigendum order is being passed. As agreed by ld. representative both the sides

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S. R.B.Seth Shreeram Narsingdas, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 36/NAG/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. R.B. Seth Shreeram Nagpur. Narsingdas, Flat No.C-2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440025. Pan : Aacfr0227N Appellant Respondent C.O. No.05/Nag/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.36/Nag/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. R.B. Seth Shreeram Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Narsingdas, 2(2), Nagpur. Flat No.C-2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440025. Pan : Aacr0227N Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Bandhia Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur [‘The 2 C.O. No.05/Nag/2018 Cit(A)’] Dated 28.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Appeal Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BandhiaFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur [‘the 2 C.O. No.05/NAG/2018 CIT(A)’] dated 28.12.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the appeal of the Revenue. ITA No.36/NAG/2018 – By Revenue : 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee ... result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.36/NAG/2018 stands allowed. C. O. No.05/NAG/2018 – By Assessee : 8. Since the present Cross Objection filed by the assessee only in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the order the ld. CIT(A) is quashed and the assessment

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S R.B. Seth Shreeram Narsingdas, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 35/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.35/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. R.B. Seth Shreeram Nagpur. Narsingdas, Flat No.C-2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440025. Pan : Aacfr0227N Appellant Respondent C.O. No.04/Nag/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.35/Nag/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. R.B. Seth Shreeram Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Narsingdas, 2(2), Nagpur. Flat No.C-2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440025. Pan : Aacfr0227N Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Bandhia Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The 2 C.O. No.04/Nag/2018 Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Appeal Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BandhiaFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 268A(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28.12.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14. The 2 C.O. No.04/NAG/2018 Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the appeal of the Revenue. ITA No.35/NAG/2018 – By Revenue : 2. It is stated before us that the tax effect ... stands dismissed. C. O. No.04/NAG/2018 – By Assessee : 4. Since the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous. Thus, the Cross Objection in C.O. No.04/NAG/2018 filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cental Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. M/S Gupta Metallics 7 Power Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/NAG/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap

Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The assessee has also filed Cross Objections in the appeals filed by the Revenue. 2. Upon hearing, we note that the issues raised in both the appeals and cross objections are similar basing ... same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to dispose off above said appeals and cross objections together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up the Cross Objections filed by the appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cental Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. M/S Gupta Metallics 7 Power Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/NAG/2018[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap

Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

The ACIT, Kozhikode vs. Shri K.C.James, Goa

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and the assessee’s COs are dismissed

ITA 54/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(45)

54/Coch/2022 & CO Nos. 01 &02/Coch/2023 (AYs. 2011-12 & 2013-14) K.C. James vs. Asst. CIT separate orders of even date, i.e., 29/12/2017. The corresponding cross objections (COs) by the assessee are supportive of the impugned orders. 2.1 Shri Surendranath Rao, the learned counsel for the assessee, on being queried

The ACIT, Kozhikode vs. Shri.. K.C.James, Goa

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and the assessee’s COs are dismissed

ITA 53/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(45)

M/S. Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., Ajmer vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 297/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 297/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Raghuveer Metals Industries Ltd., 21, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer cuke Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7496 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1039/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ce

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (CIT)

Section 143Section 250

Raghuveer Metal Industries Limited for the AY 2015-16 and both the matters have identical facts and circumstances hence the written submission and cross objections to make the case of the assessee is as under:- The appellant is disputing the above said action of CIT(A) and hence this appeal

ACIT, Alwar vs. Raghuveer Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 1039/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (CIT)

Section 143Section 250

Garv Associates, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Garv Associates, Ito Ward -1(3), Faridabad B/105, Green Field Colony, Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad, Haryana 121010 Vs. Pan Aajfg 5926 E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal, Ca Revenue For : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Nfac, New Delhi Dated 08.03.2023 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Submitted That The Assessee, Except Ground No. 10, Does Not Want To Press Other Grounds Of Appeal Hence, Other Grounds Of Appeal Are Dismissed. Remaining Sole Effective Ground No. 10 Reads As Follows:- 10) The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Interpreting Provision Of Section 68 After Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Matter In Respect Of Unsecured Loans Of Rs. 40,00,000/-, Raising The Following Questions:- I. Whether, 'First Proviso' Of 'Section 68' Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Squarely Covered Transaction In The Nature Of Unsecured Loans' Or Shall Restricted To Credits On Account Of 'Share Application Money', 'Share Capital', Share Premium Etc.? Ii. Whether, As Per Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, The Assessee Has Not Discharged Its Initial Onus To Prove: (1) Identity Of The Creditor Lenders; (2) Credit-Worthiness Of The Creditor Lender; & (3) Genuineness Of The Transaction. By Submitting Following Set Of Documentation:

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal, CA

Section 68

loan to the respective lender by the assessee in the subsequent assessment year. So far as contention of assessee that the opportunity of cross objection was not provided is concerned the ld. CIT(A) at page 19 top para last sentence wrongly noted that there is no request from

Income Tax Officer Ward - 1(1)(1), Surat vs. V R Surat Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known As M/S Dhanlaxmi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee (in CO

ITA 329/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs. V R Surat Pvt. Ltd. 1(1)(1), Surat, Room No.111, 1St (Formerly Known As M/S. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Dhanlaxmi Infrastructure Pvt. Gate, Surat-395001 Ltd.,).F. No.29, Virtuous Retail, Surat Dumas, Nr. Dumas Resort, Magdalla, Surat– 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd5578R (Assessee) (Respondent) ""या"ेप. सं./Co No.16/Srt/2022 [Arising Out Of Ita No.329/Srt/2022] Assessment Year: (2015-16)

Section 14Section 143(3)

21/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 27/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2015-16, are directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income ... made by TPO/assessing officer. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us and assessee also filed cross objection before us. 7. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue argued that during the course of transfer pricing assessment proceedings

CIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ramlal Jwellers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1600/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Shri Ramlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee against order dated 13/03/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2017-18 ... period." 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend and/or vary the grounds of Appeal before or during the course of hearing. 3. In cross objection assessee has raised following ground:- 1. “The Learned Commissioner Appeals failed to appreciate the AO erred in imposing tax @60% u/s.115BBE instead

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. West Pioneer Properties (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1333/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit 5(3)(1) Vs. West Pioneer Properties Room No. 573, (India) Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 1002, 10Th Floor, Tower- Mumbai- 400 020 3, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacw5756A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Kishore DhuleFor Respondent: Vijay Mehta

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

therefore, all the ground of appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. 6. The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. C.O. No.52/Mum/2023 7. In the cross objection the assessee submitted that the notional rental income is determined in the books of account on straight-line basis in accordance with the provision ... verification that assesse has already offered the actual lease rental income in its total receipt under the head business income. Therefore, this ground of cross objection filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. P a g e | 8 ITA No.1333/Mum/2023 C.O.52/Mum/2023 DCIT 5(3)(1) Vs. West Poineer

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 375/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

orders being ITA No. 1652/Del/2013 and ITA No. 1653/Del/2013 for A. Y. 2004-05 and A. Y. 2005-06 along with Cross Objections filed by the assessee are also identified. 9. He submitted that in the said Order, categorical and factual findings have been recorded that the common documents impounded

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 374/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 641/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

ITO, Ward-1, Karnal vs. Sunil Bali, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 138/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Ito, Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana 132001 Sunil Bali, 1148, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal, Vs. Haryana 132011 Pan Ajlpb 5283 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 55/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sunil Bali, Ito, Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana 132001 1148, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana 132011 Vs. Pan Ajlpb 5283 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None Revenue For : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg:- Above Captioned Appeals Of Revenue & Cross Objection Of Assessee Have Been Filed Against The Order Of Nfac New Delhi Dated 01.12.2022 For 2015-16. 2. That The Tax Effect Involved In The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Is Below Rs.50 Lakhs. Therefore, In View Of The Recent Cbdt Circular No.17/2019 Dated 8Th August, 2019, Raising The Monetary Limit For Filing Of The Appeal By The Revenue Before The Tribunal To Rs.50 Lakhs & The Subsequent Clarification Of The Cbdt, Vide Notification Dated 20Th August, 2019 Stating That The Said Circular Is Applicable Even To Pending Appeals, The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Not Maintainable. Co No. 55/Del/2023

For Appellant: None

Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2023 ORDER Per Chandra Mohan Garg:- Above captioned appeals of revenue and cross objection of assessee have been filed against the order of NFAC New Delhi dated 01.12.2022 for 2015-16. 2. That the tax effect involved ... recall of this order. CO No.55/Del/2023 6. In view of the dismissal of the appeal of the Revenue due to low tax effect, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed as infructuous. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection

DCIT-CC 5(2), Mumbai vs. Jetair Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3050/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

Jetair Private Limited आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee against the order dated 05/09/2022 passed by CIT(A)-53, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for A.Y.2018-19 ... fact that 3 M/s. Jetair Private Limited it requires adjustment for difference without actually establishing any such differences 3. Whereas in the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the Assessing Officer has erred in making addition

DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Caddie Hotels Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1724/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the PCIT, Gurgaon dated 29.03.2019 for A.Y 2014 -15. Cross Objection by the assessee is preferred for A.Y 2015-16. All these appeals and cross objection were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake ... convenience and brevity. 2. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee withdrew Cross Objections filed by the assessee. Therefore, the same are dismissed as withdrawn. 3. The peculiar facts for A.Y 2014-15 are that the impugned appeal by the Revenue in ITA No. 1721/DEL/2022