“ cross objection ”

DCIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd.

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.

378 ITR 693 · 2015 · High Court

Pr. CIT v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.

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.

86 Taxmann.com 148 · 2017 · High Court

Peter Vaz v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore

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.

128 Taxmann.com 180 · 2021 · High Court

Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT

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.

282 ITR 321 · 2006 · High Court

Mavany Brothers v. CIT, Panjim

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.

62 Taxmann.com 50 · 2015 · High Court

CIT v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

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.

234 ITR 663 · 1998 · High Court

CIT(E) v. Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria

A cross objection filed by an assessee against an order of the CIT(A) can be considered as an appeal by the assessee.

168 Taxmann.com 35 · 2024 · High Court

ITA 265/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Chokhi Dhani Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

ITA 264/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2016-17

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 Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

ITA 87/PAT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 May 2023AY 2015-16

ITO, Ward-2(1), Begusarai vs. Smt. Satayabati Devi, Khagaria

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objection by the assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

ITA 7326/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2010-11

06/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 87/PAT/2020) A.Y.: 2015-2016 Smt. Satayabati Devi , Khagaria 3. On receipt of notice, the assessee has filed Cross Objection bearing No.6/PAT/2022. In the Cross Objection, the assessee is aggrieved with estimation of profit at 3% of the total turnover. According to the assessee, it should ... either of the Grounds, i.e. Ground No.1 or Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal. Consequently we do not find merit in the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objection by the assessee both

ACIT, Circle- 18(2), New Delhi vs. Ntpc Sail Power Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32

Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Heard and perused the record. At the opening of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the cross objections filed separately challenging the re-opening is not pressed. NTPC Sail Power Co. P. Ltd. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.160/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Income Tax, Educational Society, Central Circle-1, D.No.23/812, Ravindra 3Rd Floor, Raj Kamal Complex, Bharathi Bhavan, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Fathekhanpet, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524003. Pan: Aaaar 2715 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 21/Viz/2022 (आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.160/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2018-19 ) M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Educational Society, Income Tax, D.No.23/812, Ravindra Bharathi Central Circle-1, Bhavan, Fathekhanpet, Nellore, 3Rd Floor, Raj Kamal Complex, Andhra Pradesh-524003. Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan: Aaaar 2715 E ( Cross Objector) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 12ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

hence the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. With respect to Cross Objection of the assessee, Grounds No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 are supportive in nature and therefore they are considered as infructuous and dismissed as such ... With respect to Ground No. 5 of the Cross Objection wherein the objection was raised by the assessee with respect to estimation of income without rejecting the books of account, we note that since the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed based on considering the reopening of assessment

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Morbi Circle, Morbi vs. M/S. Zealtop Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 31/Rjt/2018 With Co No.17/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2014-2015 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" D.C.I.T., M/S Zealtop Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Survey No.596, 8/A, Morbi. National Highway, Old Ghuma Road, Morbi-2. Pan: Aaacz3126B

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 131Section 143(3)

order passed under s. 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act"). The assessee has filed the Cross Objection in the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No. 31/Rjt/2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds ... order of the learned CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us and the assessee is in CO. The ground of cross objections in the CO bearing No. 17/Rjt/2018 are listed below: ITA No. 31/Rjt/2018 with C.O No.17/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 7 1. The learned C1T(A) has erred

DCIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ramani Exports, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 609/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.609 & 608/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-19 (3). M/S. Ramani Exports. Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 6/B, Shreeji Darshan, Tata बिधम/ Room No. 206, Grant Road, No. 01 & 02, Opera Road. Mumbai-400 006 House. Mumbai-400 004 Vs.

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 21Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and cross objection by the Assessee against separate order of even date 03.01.2023 passed by the NFAC Delhi, for the quantum of assessment passed ... Since, similar finding has been given by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, our aforesaid finding will apply mutatis mutandis this years. 12. The cross objection filed by the Assessee are in support of order of the CIT (A), therefore same are also deleted and hence is treated as allowed

DCIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ramani Exports, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 608/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 21Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. Hiraben Khantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 907/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

assessee has filed appeal for AY 2012-13. The Revenue has filed appeals for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee has filed Cross Objections for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. In the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 and in the Cross objections filed ... filed appeals challenging the relief granted by Ld CIT(A) in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee, on the contrary, has filed cross objections in both the above said years raising the legal contention that the impugned additions could not have been made in the absence

Dy CIT Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. Hiraben Khantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 904/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Dy CIT Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. Bhavya Pankaj Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Pronouncement 16.05.2023 O R D E R Per Bench:- The Revenue has filed the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 and the assessee has filed Cross Objections. In the Cross objection, the assessee is challenging the validity of additions made in the assessment completed under section 153A ... additions made by the AO. Hence, the Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the relief granted by Ld CIT(A). The assessee has filed cross objection raising the legal contention that the impugned additions could not have been made in the absence of any incriminating material. 4. Learned AR submitted

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Ireo Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 911/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR

ITA 910/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2010-11

Revenue by : Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2023 ORDER PER: M. BALAGANESH, AM: The appeals and Cross Objections in the case of IREO Waterfront Pvt. Ltd., in ITAs No.2849 & 2850/Del/2016 for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 and CO Nos.235 & 236/Del/2016 arise ... Delhi ITA Nos.2849 &2850/Del/2016; CO No.235 & 236/Del/2016; ITA Nos.910 & 911/Del/2017; & CO No.99 & 100/Del/2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). The appeals and Cross Objections in the case of IREO Pvt. Ltd., in ITAs No.910 & 911/Del/2017 also for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 and CO Nos.99 & 100/Del/2017 arise

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Ireo Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR

ITA 2850/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2011-12

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ireo Waterfront Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR

ITA 2849/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2010-11

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ireo Waterfront Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR

ITA 657/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2011-12

ITO Ward 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Stiack Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhamarjit Singhito Ward 8(2)(1) Vs. M/S Stiack Engineering Room No. 622, 6 Th Floor, Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, 203 Turf Estate, Shakti M.K. Road Mill Lane, Maharashtra Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 011 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabch0500Q Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Satyaprakash Singh