← 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

ACIT CC-18 vs. Neena Hardeep Singh

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1421/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Mrs. Neena Hardeep Singh Central Circle-18, L-5, Hauz Khas Enclave, Room No. 327, 3Rd Floor New Delhi Ara Centre, E-2, Pan : Aarps4684B Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

passed by ACIT, Circle-18, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. Assessing officer or in short Ld. AO) and Cross objection have been raised by assessee. 2. The facts in brief are that assessee had claimed to be engaged in the business of fabrication and trading of readymade garments. Return ... grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 4.2 The assessee has also raised following grounds in the cross objections : “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have independently entertained and examined

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3224/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh: A.Y : 2015-16 Acit, Circle – 14(1(2), Vs. M/S. Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. (Appellant) Centaure House, Shanti Nagar Vakola, Santacruz East Mumbai 400055 (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mahendale, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 35

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2 ITA No. 3224/M/2022 & CO No. 25/M/2023 Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 2) Assessee has filed cross objection in CO No. 25/Mum/2023, which is against failure of ld CIT (A) to grant direction to allow deduction u./s 35(2AB) on full amount without netting ... taxmann.com 365. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8) The cross objection of the assessee was with respect to granting deduction on the gross expenditure without reducing the income. This issue is decided by the Hon’ble Karnataka

Johnson &Johnson P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT/ACIT/Jt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1740/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92CSection 93C

Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) against the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai (learned DRP) dated 30th December, 2015 and Cross Objection No.33/Mum/2017 is filed by assessee. ITA No.2779/Mum/2016 is filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 144C ... No.2779/Mum/2016. The learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved by the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel and therefore, is in appeal in ITA No.3015/Mum/2016. The cross objection ITA No.1740/MUM/2021, 2779, 3015/MUM/2016, CO 33/MUM/2017 Johnson & Johnson Private Ltd A.Y. 2011-12, 2016-17 filed by the assessee in CO No. 33/Mum/2017 against

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd.(Frmerly Known As Johnson & Johnson Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 3015/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92CSection 93C

Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) against the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai (learned DRP) dated 30th December, 2015 and Cross Objection No.33/Mum/2017 is filed by assessee. ITA No.2779/Mum/2016 is filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 144C ... No.2779/Mum/2016. The learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved by the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel and therefore, is in appeal in ITA No.3015/Mum/2016. The cross objection ITA No.1740/MUM/2021, 2779, 3015/MUM/2016, CO 33/MUM/2017 Johnson & Johnson Private Ltd A.Y. 2011-12, 2016-17 filed by the assessee in CO No. 33/Mum/2017 against

Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - Ltu-1, Mumbai

ITA 2779/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92CSection 93C

Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) against the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai (learned DRP) dated 30th December, 2015 and Cross Objection No.33/Mum/2017 is filed by assessee. ITA No.2779/Mum/2016 is filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 144C ... No.2779/Mum/2016. The learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved by the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel and therefore, is in appeal in ITA No.3015/Mum/2016. The cross objection ITA No.1740/MUM/2021, 2779, 3015/MUM/2016, CO 33/MUM/2017 Johnson & Johnson Private Ltd A.Y. 2011-12, 2016-17 filed by the assessee in CO No. 33/Mum/2017 against

Harshit Gems Ltd, Surat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 344/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 153(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This bunch of four cross-appeals filed by Revenue as well as assessee and two Cross Objections (COs) in revenues appeals by assessee are directed against the separate ITA Nod.313-314, 342 & 344/SRT/2022 & CO No.09-10/SRT/2023 (A.Ys.12-13 & 14-15) M/s Harshit ... find that assessee has raised following ground in its Co(s); C.O.No.09/SRT/2023 (A.Y 12-13) in ITA No. 313/SRT/2022 The appellant prefers an cross objection appeal against an order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Surat dated 16/08/2022 on following amongst other grounds each of which

Harshit Gems Ltd, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 342/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 153(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This bunch of four cross-appeals filed by Revenue as well as assessee and two Cross Objections (COs) in revenues appeals by assessee are directed against the separate ITA Nod.313-314, 342 & 344/SRT/2022 & CO No.09-10/SRT/2023 (A.Ys.12-13 & 14-15) M/s Harshit ... find that assessee has raised following ground in its Co(s); C.O.No.09/SRT/2023 (A.Y 12-13) in ITA No. 313/SRT/2022 The appellant prefers an cross objection appeal against an order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Surat dated 16/08/2022 on following amongst other grounds each of which

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Harshit Gems Ltd., Surat

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 314/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 153(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This bunch of four cross-appeals filed by Revenue as well as assessee and two Cross Objections (COs) in revenues appeals by assessee are directed against the separate ITA Nod.313-314, 342 & 344/SRT/2022 & CO No.09-10/SRT/2023 (A.Ys.12-13 & 14-15) M/s Harshit ... find that assessee has raised following ground in its Co(s); C.O.No.09/SRT/2023 (A.Y 12-13) in ITA No. 313/SRT/2022 The appellant prefers an cross objection appeal against an order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Surat dated 16/08/2022 on following amongst other grounds each of which

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Harshit Gems Ltd., Surat

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 313/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 153(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This bunch of four cross-appeals filed by Revenue as well as assessee and two Cross Objections (COs) in revenues appeals by assessee are directed against the separate ITA Nod.313-314, 342 & 344/SRT/2022 & CO No.09-10/SRT/2023 (A.Ys.12-13 & 14-15) M/s Harshit ... find that assessee has raised following ground in its Co(s); C.O.No.09/SRT/2023 (A.Y 12-13) in ITA No. 313/SRT/2022 The appellant prefers an cross objection appeal against an order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Surat dated 16/08/2022 on following amongst other grounds each of which

DCIT, Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 84/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th For, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th Flr, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143

Apex Court in the case of M/s Goetz India Ltd Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC).” 02. Assessee has also filed cross objection No. 356/Mum/2023 wherein it has raised following grounds:- “The Appellant prefers an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... view of this both the grounds of appeal raised by the learned assessing officer are dismissed. 08. Assessee does not want to press the cross objection, and therefore same are also dismissed. 09. In the result, appeal of the learned AO as well as the cross objections filed

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited), Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 356/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th For, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Successor To Aditya Birla Central Circle 1(4), Nuvo Ltd0 9Th Flr, 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, A0Wing, Vs. Old C.G.O. Bldg., (Annexe), 2Nd Floor, Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaac11747H Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143

Apex Court in the case of M/s Goetz India Ltd Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323(SC).” 02. Assessee has also filed cross objection No. 356/Mum/2023 wherein it has raised following grounds:- “The Appellant prefers an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... view of this both the grounds of appeal raised by the learned assessing officer are dismissed. 08. Assessee does not want to press the cross objection, and therefore same are also dismissed. 09. In the result, appeal of the learned AO as well as the cross objections filed

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S S.G. Portfolio (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue and Cross Objection filed

ITA 6869/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year : 2011-12]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 4

Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Jha, Sr. DR ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by Revenue and Cross Objection by assessee are directed towards the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi dated 16.10.2015 pertaining to Assessment Year ... appeal and Cross Objection were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The grievances of the Revenue read as under: “(1) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in deleting the addition

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Hcl Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3527/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 11(1), Versus Hcl Comnet Systems & Services New Delhi. Ltd., 806, Sidharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaach3130M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 14A

Shri Arpit Goyal, CA. Date of hearing : 10.05.2023 Date of pronouncement : 07.06.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: Captioned appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee arise out of order dated 13.02.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi for the assessment year ... justified in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on capitalization of Licence Fee of Rs.2,26,50,074/-? Whereas, grounds raised in cross objection are as under : “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1125/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Respondent by Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 10.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 07.06.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeals and cross objections by the assessee and Revenue relate to the same assessee and against various orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), pertaining to assessment years ... Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 4588 & 4589/Del/2015 2. These appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1124/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Respondent by Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 10.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 07.06.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeals and cross objections by the assessee and Revenue relate to the same assessee and against various orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), pertaining to assessment years ... Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 4588 & 4589/Del/2015 2. These appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4589/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Respondent by Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 10.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 07.06.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeals and cross objections by the assessee and Revenue relate to the same assessee and against various orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), pertaining to assessment years ... Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 4588 & 4589/Del/2015 2. These appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 4588/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Respondent by Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 10.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 07.06.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeals and cross objections by the assessee and Revenue relate to the same assessee and against various orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), pertaining to assessment years ... Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 4588 & 4589/Del/2015 2. These appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3449/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Respondent by Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 10.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 07.06.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeals and cross objections by the assessee and Revenue relate to the same assessee and against various orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), pertaining to assessment years ... Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 4588 & 4589/Del/2015 2. These appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3448/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Respondent by Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 10.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 07.06.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeals and cross objections by the assessee and Revenue relate to the same assessee and against various orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), pertaining to assessment years ... Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 4588 & 4589/Del/2015 2. These appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon vs. Gurcharna Kumar Sethi, Gurgaon

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

ITA 9302/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Gurcharna Kumar Sethi, Circle-1(1), 3302, Sec-23, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan: Acqps7554R Co No.37/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gurcharna Kumar Sethi, Vs. Dcit, 3302, Sec-23, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon, Gurgaon. Haryana. Pan: Acqps7554R

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 153C

No.37/Del/2023 Date of Hearing : 26.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2023 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: The appeal in ITA No.9302/Del/2019 and the Cross Objection in CO No.37/Del/2023 for AY 2012-13, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, [hereinafter referred ... recall of this order. CO No.37/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