“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. Poonam Developers LLP, Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Ut)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 318/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

Hardik Vora, AR आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned six appeals filed by the Revenue and three Cross Objections filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment years (AY) 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, are directed against the separate orders ... Revenue in these two sets of assessee`s appeals are common and identical, therefore since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. M/S. M Poonam Developers, Valsad

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 286/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. M/S. M Poonam Developers, Valsad

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 285/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Vapi vs. M/S. M Poonam Developers, Valsad

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 284/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

ACIT, Circle-3(3), Surat vs. Shri Jethabhai Danabhai Vadher, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas assessee’s

ITA 142/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 143(3)

/Date of Pronouncement : 26/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection (CO) filed the by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, are directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income ... Rs.36,00,000/- by not disclosing the same in his regular books of account?” 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in cross objection No.17/SRT/2020, are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Parinee Housing Private Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, being devoid of any merit

ITA 560/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 560@Eaqcbz@2023 ¼Fu-Oa- 2018&19½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4) 8Th Floor, Room No.802, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 Cuke Vs. M/S. Parinee Housing Private Limited C-38 & 39, G Block Crescenzo, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aagcp0245D Izr;K{Ksi-La- 42@Eaqcbz@2023 ¼Fu-Oa- 2018&19½ Co No.42/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2018-19) M/S. Parinee Housing Private Limited 103, 1St Floor, Smag House, Plot No.157A, Sarojini Road Extn, Opp. Darshana Apt. Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400 056 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aagcp0245D Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4) 8Th Floor, Room No.802, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramchandran, Sr. AR

Section 185

deleting the addition of interest on the loans advanced to the directors and sister concern/related parties. The assessee has filed Cross Objection in appeal filed by the Revenue supporting the order of First Appellate Authority. 3. Ms. Sudha Ramchandran representing the Department submitted that assessee has advanced interest free loans ... result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. CO No.42/Mum/2021 (AY. 2018-19) 7. The assessee has filed Cross Objections supporting the order of CIT(A). Since, we have dismissed appeal of the Revenue, Cross Objections filed by the assessee have become infructuous, hence, dismissed

ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Albatross Share Registry Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3788/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri N.R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Smt Shailja Rai

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Mumbai v/s M/s. Albatross Share Registry Pvt. Ltd. …………….Respondent 4F2, Court Chambers, 35, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020 PAN – AAACA9004H Cross Objection no.143/Mum./2021 (Arising out of ITA no.3788/Mum./2019) (Assessment Year : 2010–11) M/s. Albatross Share Registry Pvt. Ltd. ……………. Cross Objector 4F2, Court Chambers, 35, New Marine Lines ... Hearing – 28/03/2023 Date of Order – 23/06/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29/03/2019, passed under section 250 of the Income

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

ITA 1439/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Ms. Banita Devi Neorem, CITFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Neorem, CIT

Pronouncement 23.06.2023 2 ITA No. 1439/Del/2022 &C.O No. 44/Del/2022 DCIT VS. RUCHI GARG ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM The present appeal and Cross Objection filed by the Revenue and the Assessee respectively against the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, for assessment year

ACIT, Circle- 20(2), New Delhi vs. Rps Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, C.O No. 70/Del/2021 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6300/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

6300/Del/2018 AND C. O. No. 70/Del/2021 M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd., ND ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal and the cross objection are filed by the Revenue and assessee respectively against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXV [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) New Delhi ... regarding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with Section 147 of the Act, we deem it fit to decide the Cross Objection of the assessee before the disposing the appeal filed by the revenue. 8. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee addressing argument on the C.O., submitted that the reopening

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC - 5(1), Mumbai vs. Veritas India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2098/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

satisfies all the conditions prescribed under section 153A of the. 034. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the cross objections of the assessee, hence it is dismissed.” 10. Since the legal issue emanates from the same search on 10.09.2015 and in the same group cases

Veritas (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1897/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. Shri Amar Singh Educational Charitabe Trust, Jalandhar

In the result, the grounds of revenue 1

ITA 47/ASR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

JCIT(OSD) Shri. Amar Singh Educational Central Circle-1, Charitable Trust 1-C Chotti Baradari, Jalandhar Garha Road, Jalandhar [PAN: AAETS8075R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No. 5/Asr/2022 (In I.T.A. No. 47/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri. Amar Singh Educational The JCIT(OSD) Charitable Trust 1-C Chotti Baradari, Central Circle ... 5/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue and Cross objection by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana dt. 21/04/2021 in repect of the Assessment Year

Star India Pvt. Ltd. (Sucessor of Star Sports India Pvt. Ltd.- (Ssipl), Mumbai vs. ACIT 16 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above and Ground

ITA 657/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. A C I T (Successor Of Star Sports India -16(1) Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 439, Star House, Urmi Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg M.K. Road, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaacn1335Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 114/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) A C I T -16(1) M/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan (Successor Of Star Sports India M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400013 Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr Advocate Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das –Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 01. Assessee Has Filed Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Acit-16(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, SR AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das –CIT-DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

aggrieved with the directions of the LD DRP holding the draft Assessment order passed as void ab initio and so is in Appeal by cross Objection. 04. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is an Indian company, wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign entity and is engaged

ACIT, CC-26, Delhi vs. Jai Maa Bhawani Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and Cross

ITA 230/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

No.323, ARA Vs Pvt. Ltd. Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. B-5/263, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110085 PAN-AABCJ0239L Revenue Assessee Cross Objection No.20/Del/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.230/DEL/2022) [Assessment Year: 2016-17] M/s Jai Maa Bhawani ACIT, Central Circle-26, Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Room ... conclusion, by applying the CBDT Circular dated 08.08.2019 and letter dated 20.08.2019 (supra), the captioned appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Cross Objection No.20/Del/2023 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded to withdraw the cross objection and we permit the same. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue

Confrere Educational Society, Noida vs. ITO (Exemption), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 12ASection 250Section 251Section 56

section 11 has been overruled by the first appellate authority, which finding has now attained finality as revenue is not in appeal or in cross objection. The Assessing Officer has only taxed the surplus over income and expenditure account, however the ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to tax the entire

Addi. CIT Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Dcm Shriiram Ltd (Earlier Known As Bioseed Research India Ltd), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4261/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth,[CIT] D. R

Section 143(2)Section 80I

Praveen Sidharth,[CIT] D. R. Date of Hearing 07.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.06.2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal and the cross objection are filed by the Revenue and assessee respectively against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax ITA. 4261/Del/2019 & C. O. No. 116/Del/2022 ... accordingly, the order was passed in the name of non-existent entity.” 4. There is delay of 63 days in filing of Cross Objection No. 116/Del/2022 by the Assessee. The assessee in the application for condonation of delay, pleaded that there was no notice issued to the assessee

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. U K Paints India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

dated 15.03.2013 & 12.10.2017 in Appeal No.191/10-11/1149 and in Appeal No.200/16- 17/2863 relating to the A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2014-15 respectively. The Assessee filed cross objection for the A.Y. 2008-09 in support of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 2. Brief facts of the case as culled ... amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 5. Assessee has also filed a Cross Objection wherein the grounds are as under: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 4115/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. M/S the Citizen Urban Co- Operative Bank Limited, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 62/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145Section 45Q

also dismissed. In view of the entire discussion and in view of the facts and circumstances and judicial precedents, we allow the appeals and Cross Objections of assessee relating to issue of disallowance of inter-transfer of securities and further the Revenue's appeal for the issues relating to disallowance

ITO, Ward-10(3), Delhi vs. Grow More Buildtech Pvt.Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is

ITA 2002/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Grow More Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Ward 10(3), Delhi. Plot No. 77, S.A. House, Sector-44, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccg3841L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 03/Del/2022 (In Ita No. 2002/Del/2021) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147

Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 14.06.2023 Date of pronouncement: 14.06.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: Captioned appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee arise out of order dated 20.01.2022 of learned 2 Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi for the assessment year ... decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition. Grounds raised are dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed. 7. In so far as cross objection is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on instructions, submitted that he does 7 not want to press it. Accordingly, the cross objection