← 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

Brodaways Overseas Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalandhar

ITA 123/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10BSection 14A

Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter or add to the above grounds of cross objection, before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” Grounds of appeal in CO No. 06/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that ... respectively, in mutatis mutandis. 32. Since, the appeals of the department are being rejected on merits, as above and hence, the Cross Objections of the assessee arising out of these appeals are dismissed as infructuous. In ITA No. 123/Asr/2018: 33. The grounds no. 1 to 3 are inter-linked

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S Broadway Overseas Ltd., Jalandhar

ITA 49/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 10BSection 14A

Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter or add to the above grounds of cross objection, before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” Grounds of appeal in CO No. 06/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that ... respectively, in mutatis mutandis. 32. Since, the appeals of the department are being rejected on merits, as above and hence, the Cross Objections of the assessee arising out of these appeals are dismissed as infructuous. In ITA No. 123/Asr/2018: 33. The grounds no. 1 to 3 are inter-linked

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S Broadway Overseas Ltd., Jalandhar

ITA 48/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 10BSection 14A

Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter or add to the above grounds of cross objection, before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” Grounds of appeal in CO No. 06/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that ... respectively, in mutatis mutandis. 32. Since, the appeals of the department are being rejected on merits, as above and hence, the Cross Objections of the assessee arising out of these appeals are dismissed as infructuous. In ITA No. 123/Asr/2018: 33. The grounds no. 1 to 3 are inter-linked

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S Broadway Overseas Ltd., Jalandhar

ITA 47/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 10BSection 14A

Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter or add to the above grounds of cross objection, before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” Grounds of appeal in CO No. 06/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that ... respectively, in mutatis mutandis. 32. Since, the appeals of the department are being rejected on merits, as above and hence, the Cross Objections of the assessee arising out of these appeals are dismissed as infructuous. In ITA No. 123/Asr/2018: 33. The grounds no. 1 to 3 are inter-linked

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S Broadway Overseas Ltd., Jalandhar

ITA 46/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 10BSection 14A

Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter or add to the above grounds of cross objection, before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” Grounds of appeal in CO No. 06/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that ... respectively, in mutatis mutandis. 32. Since, the appeals of the department are being rejected on merits, as above and hence, the Cross Objections of the assessee arising out of these appeals are dismissed as infructuous. In ITA No. 123/Asr/2018: 33. The grounds no. 1 to 3 are inter-linked

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S Broadways Overseas Ltd, Jalandhar

ITA 345/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10BSection 14A

Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter or add to the above grounds of cross objection, before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” Grounds of appeal in CO No. 06/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that ... respectively, in mutatis mutandis. 32. Since, the appeals of the department are being rejected on merits, as above and hence, the Cross Objections of the assessee arising out of these appeals are dismissed as infructuous. In ITA No. 123/Asr/2018: 33. The grounds no. 1 to 3 are inter-linked

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. M/S Broadways Overseas Ltd, Jalandhar

ITA 477/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 10BSection 14A

Asstt. CIT v. Broadways Overseas Ltd. & Ors 4. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter or add to the above grounds of cross objection, before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” Grounds of appeal in CO No. 06/Asr/2016 “1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that ... respectively, in mutatis mutandis. 32. Since, the appeals of the department are being rejected on merits, as above and hence, the Cross Objections of the assessee arising out of these appeals are dismissed as infructuous. In ITA No. 123/Asr/2018: 33. The grounds no. 1 to 3 are inter-linked

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 10. The assessee filed cross objections supporting the order of the Id. CIT(A). Since, the appeal of the revenue is M/s. Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. dismissed, the cross objection filed by the assessee ... becomes infructuous, hence, dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed." 8. Learned DR reiterated the stand of the Revenue as reflected in the order of the CIT(A). 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Both

DCIT Circle 8(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. . Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1638/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

Ahuja, DR : Date of Hearing Date of Hearing 10/05/2023 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/05/2023 ORDER PER BENCH: These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against separate orders passed ... facts and circumstances in these appeals and respectively. The facts and circumstances in these appeals respectively. The facts and circumstances in these appeals cross objections being being identical, samewere heard together and heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and disposed

DCIT, Cir 8(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1637/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

Ahuja, DR : Date of Hearing Date of Hearing 10/05/2023 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/05/2023 ORDER PER BENCH: These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against separate orders passed ... facts and circumstances in these appeals and respectively. The facts and circumstances in these appeals respectively. The facts and circumstances in these appeals cross objections being being identical, samewere heard together and heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and disposed

Ogilvy and Mather P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1326/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

Ahuja, DR : Date of Hearing Date of Hearing 10/05/2023 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/05/2023 ORDER PER BENCH: These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against separate orders passed ... facts and circumstances in these appeals and respectively. The facts and circumstances in these appeals respectively. The facts and circumstances in these appeals cross objections being being identical, samewere heard together and heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and disposed

Ogily and Mather P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT -8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1325/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

Ahuja, DR : Date of Hearing Date of Hearing 10/05/2023 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/05/2023 ORDER PER BENCH: These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against separate orders passed ... facts and circumstances in these appeals and respectively. The facts and circumstances in these appeals respectively. The facts and circumstances in these appeals cross objections being being identical, samewere heard together and heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and disposed

Ogilvy and Mather P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the cross appeals of the assessee and Revenue of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1324/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah/Hetal Sangani
Section 37

Ahuja, DR : Date of Hearing Date of Hearing 10/05/2023 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/05/2023 ORDER PER BENCH: These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against These cross appeals and cross objections are directed against separate orders passed ... facts and circumstances in these appeals and respectively. The facts and circumstances in these appeals respectively. The facts and circumstances in these appeals cross objections being being identical, samewere heard together and heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and disposed

DCIT, Central Circle -15, New Delhi vs. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2405/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 68

hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). And the Cross Objections have been raised by assessee. Grounds of ITA No. 2404/Del/2022, A.Y. 2016-17 are being taken up to dispose both the appeals. 2. Assessee is a company ... amend any/all the 5. grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 2.1 And the assessee has raised following cross objections :- “That the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing 1. Officer by passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) are illegal, bad in law & without

DCIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2404/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 68

hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). And the Cross Objections have been raised by assessee. Grounds of ITA No. 2404/Del/2022, A.Y. 2016-17 are being taken up to dispose both the appeals. 2. Assessee is a company ... amend any/all the 5. grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 2.1 And the assessee has raised following cross objections :- “That the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing 1. Officer by passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) are illegal, bad in law & without

Jt CIT(OSD)-Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Vainavin Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 878/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Is Covered By Series Of Decision In The Group Case Of The Assessee & In Support, Decision Of Itat In The Case Of Jcit(Osd) Vs. Nabendu Engineering Pvt. Ltd Ita No. 875/Mum/2022 Dated 12.12.2022 Wherein, Exactly Similar Grounds Were Raised Except In Variations In Figures Of Share Application Money. In This Case Also The Assessee Has Filed Application Under Rule 27 Of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Raising Legal Issue Contending That Before The Ld Cit (A) The Assessee Has Raised These Legal Grounds That The Addition Made By The Ao Are Not Based On Any Incriminating Material Or Evidence Found During The Course Of Search Relating To The Additions Made By The Ao & Is Beyond The Scope Of Section 153C Of The Act. The Said Grounds Read As Under:-

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 68

strongly objected to the legal grounds raised by the Ld. Counsel before us, stating that assessee has not filed any cross objection. He further submitted that there was enough material found during the course of search in the case of Poddar entities that the group was involved in channelizing unaccounted

Dy. CIT-5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Know As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 2429/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M Balaganeshvk-Vk-La- 2429@Eaqcbz@2019 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 5Th Floor, Room No.525, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 Cuke Vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Pandurang Budhakar Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaach5332B Izr;K{Ksi-La- 32@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ Co No.32/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Vodafone Idea Limited 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Pandurang Budhakar Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaach5332B Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 5Th Floor, Room No.525, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: S/Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate with Ketan Ved izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 154

Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) dated 28.03.2019, for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has filed Cross Objection in an appeal filed by the Department. 2. This appeal germinates from the order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... hence, not amenable to proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated at Bar that the assessee has filed Cross Objection in support of the order of CIT(A). In case appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection would become infructuous

I.T.O. -12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Alvess Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2455/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2455/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व. 2014-15) Ito-12(1)(1) Mumbai, Room No.129, Ground Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Alvess Developers Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.11 Jtn Of 29Th & 16Th Road, Opp Gurunanak Garden, Bandra(West),Mumbai 400 050. Pan: Aaccp-0964-F ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.132/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2455/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2014-15)] M/S. Alvess Developers Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.11 Jtn Of 29Th & 16Th Road, Opp Gurunanak Garden, Bandra(West),Mumbai 400 050. Pan: Aaccp-0964-F ..... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Ito-12(1)(1) ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai. Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 68

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28/07/2022, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee has filed Cross Objections in the aforesaid appeal by the Revenue supporting the order of CIT(A). 2. The solitary issue raised by the Revenue in appeal assailing ... dismissing the appeal of Revenue. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submits that if the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objections would become infructuous. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed that the Assessing Officer has already given effect to the order

Deputy Commissiner of Income Tax, Lic Building vs. M/S Gee Vee Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Date of Pronouncement : 24/05/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER BENCH There are four appeals of the different assessee filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee on the appeal of the revenue. These four appeals and four cross objections are arising out of the order ... appeals of the revenue for all four assessee’s are almost identical and having common grounds, all these appeals of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Vision Estates Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 266/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Date of Pronouncement : 24/05/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER BENCH There are four appeals of the different assessee filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee on the appeal of the revenue. These four appeals and four cross objections are arising out of the order ... appeals of the revenue for all four assessee’s are almost identical and having common grounds, all these appeals of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order