“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 -6(1)(2), Mumbai-400020 vs. M/S. Bristol Myers Squibb India P Ltd., Mumbai-400018

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

ITA 1175/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

175/Mum/2022 M/s Bristol Myers Squibb India Pvt Ltd O R D E R PER : MS PADMAVATHY S. (AM) This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [hereinafter ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] dated 23/03/2022 for the assessment year ... international transactions, as per RPM. It is ordered accordingly. C.O. No.128/Mum/2022 11. The assessee has raised the following effective grounds in the cross objection:- “1. Transfer Pricing 1.1 The Assessing Officer ("Ld AO") erred in considering Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") and not Resale Price Method ("RPM") as the most

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)., Visakhapatnam vs. Varun Ogili, Nellore

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

ITA 137/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021("नधा"रणवष"/Asst. Year:2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Varun Ogili, Tax (International Taxation), Nellore. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aakpo 5012 C C.O. No. 4/Viz/2022 (Inआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.137/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Sri Varun Ogili, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Nellore. Income Tax (International Pan: Aakpo 5012 C Taxation), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna Kota ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 04/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Sunil Vamsi Krishna KotaFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], dated 31/12/2019 for the AY 2017-18. The Cross objection is filed by the assessee. 2. At the outset, we noticed from the appeal record there is a delay of 80 days in filing the Revenue ... nature and needs no adjudication. 17. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 18. With respect to Cross Objection raised by the assessee, since it is supportive in nature, and therefore the adjudication of the CO becomes infructuous. Pronounced in the open Court

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vijayawada vs. Rama Krishna Housing Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

order passed by the Ld. AO U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AY 2015-16. Cross Objection is filed by the assessee. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee being a company is engaged in the business ... thereby dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 10 10. With respect to the Cross Objection raised by the assessee (C.O. No. 24/Viz/2020) since it is supportive in nature, considering the outcome of the Revenue’s appeal, no separate adjudication

ACIT.Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 10(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (Successor Company to M/S Cmc Limited), Mumbai

Accordingly the same is dismissed

ITA 6824/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/I.T.A.No.6824/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of बिधम M/S Tata Consultancy Income Tax-10 (1) Services Ltd (Successor Vs. 455, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Company To M/S Cmc Floor, M.K. Marg, Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.Pan/Gir No: .Aaacc2030K .. अपीलार्थी प्रत्यर्थी / Appellant / Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Harsh Kothari

Section 10A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T.VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kostub Investment Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 2281/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

passed in appeal no. 0047/2013-14 of Ld. CIT(A)-8, New Delhi by which the appeal of assessee against penalty order was allowed. Cross objections have been preferred by assessee. 2281/Del/2014 & C.O. No. 204.Del.14 M/s Kostub Investment Ltd. 2. The facts in brief are the assessment order was passed ... alter, amend or forgo any ground(s) of the appeal either before or at the time of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Cross objections have also been raised on behalf of the assessee as follows :- 1. “That the order-dated 30.03.2013 passed by the DCIT Circle

Addl. CIT, Special Range-4 vs. Mosser India Ltd

ITA 1568/DEL/2001[1996-1997]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 May 2023AY 1996-1997

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

Section 271(1)(c)

Delhi (hereinafter referred as 1568.Del.2001 Moser India Ltd. Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No. 156/2000-2001 and Cross objection has raised by assessee. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. Adjournment application has been moved on behalf of the revenue ... assessee, the claim of revenue arising out of the proceedings under the Act have become infructous. In the light of aforesaid, the appeal and cross objection are dismissed being infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd May, 2023. (N.K.BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 3rd .05.2023 *Binita, SR.P.S

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2977/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (It) – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Marriott International Design Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor & Construction Services Inc., Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 303A, 304, Fulcrum B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Mum/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2977/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19)] M/S. Marriott International Design V. Dcit (It) – 3(2)(1) & Construction Services Inc., Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 303A, 304, Fulcrum Nariman Point B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Paras Savla Department Represented By : Shri Kunal Haver

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

01/MUM/2023 M/s. Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal and cross objection are filed by revenue and assessee respectively, against order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated ... covered in favour of the assessee and brought to our notice various Coordinate Bench orders in assessee’s own case. Ld. AR submitted that Cross objection filed by the assessee is only of academic in nature. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Co, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1022/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerga International Reinsurance V. Dcit (International Taxation) -4(1)(1) Room No. 172, 17Th Floor Company Designated Activity Air India Building, Nariman Point Company Mumbai – 400 021 C/O. S.R.B.C & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aadcr1226K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.S. Paridiwala & Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala Department Represented By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

Officer, for fresh round of ALP ascertainment proceedings, as prayed by the learned Departmental Representative. The plea of the assessee, as raised in the cross objections, therefore, merits acceptance. Whether there is a DAPE or not, there are no additional profits to be brought to tax as a result

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. World Sports (India) P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO as well as appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5329/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Co No. 267/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No.5329/Mum/2017 For A.Y. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

similar as undiscounted future value and thereby holding the data used to be non contemporaneous.” 03. Assessee has also filed appeal and Cross Objection No.267/mum/2019, assessee has raised a solitary ground against the sustenance of the addition of ₹2,84,75,705/-. 04. At the time of hearing, assessee

World Sports Group (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-20, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO as well as appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5240/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Co No. 267/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No.5329/Mum/2017 For A.Y. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 5067/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 5. The grounds in Assessee’s Cross Objection for assessment year 2005-06 in C.O. No. 55/Del/2014 are as follows: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) is fully justified in canceling ... Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune 8. That the respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the grounds of cross-objection on or before the date of hearing.” 6. First, we will take up Assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 109/Pun/2007 & 1155/Del/2009 for assessment years

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 1155/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 109/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

ITO Ward - 58(6), New Delhi vs. Aman Kaushik, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on merits and the CO of the assessee is treated as infructuous

ITA 1349/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, SR. DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue and the cross objection is filed by the assessee against the order dated of the ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi dated 24.02.2020 for Assessment Year ... during the hearing of the appeal. Total tax effect (see note below)” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in Cross objection: “1. The assessment order, dated 23-12-2018, passed by the Id. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 55(1), Delhi (hereafter

Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6671/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediac.O.No.-37/Del/2020 [In Ita No.6671/Del/2019] [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd., Circle-2, Sector-128, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201304. Pan-Aadck9974B Appellant Respondent

Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel. Date of Hearing 24.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 27.04.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee and the Revenue for the assessment year 2012-13 are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida dated ... sake of convenience, appeal filed by the assessee and cross-objection filed by the Revenue were heard together and are being disposed off by way of consolidated order for the sake of brevity. C.O.No.-37/Del/2020 [In ITA No.6671/Del/2019] [Assessment Year : 2012-13] 2. First, we take up Cross-Objection

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Idemitsu Lube India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, Cross objection of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7256/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 7255 & 7256/Del/2018 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Acit Vs. Idemitsu Lube India P. Ltd. Special Range -4, 603, 6Th Floor, Erose New Delhi Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019 Pan No. Aabci 5684 A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co Nos. 36 & 35/Del/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.7255 & 7256/Del/2018) (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Idemitsu Lube India P. Ltd. Vs. Acit 603, 6Th Floor, Erose Special Range -4, Corporate Tower, Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110 019 Pan No. Aabci 5684 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)

Date of hearing: 09.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2023 2 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: Both, the appeals filed by the Revenue along with the Cross Objections by assessee, are directed against the order dated 27.08.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi relating to Assessment Years ... though the appeals filed by the Revenue are for two different assessment years but however the facts are identical in both the appeals and cross objections and therefore he has common arguments to make. Learned AR did not controvert the aforesaid submissions of Learned DR. We therefore for the sake

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Idemitsu Lube India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, Cross objection of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7255/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(3)

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

gone through the finding of the lower authorities. The ld. AR of the assessee has not raised any specific ground by filing any separate Cross Objection the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee to allow the deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at this ... stage as the assessee has not filed any appeal or cross objection. For the merits of the case of the Revenue in disallowance of Rs. 2,65,591/- on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF and ESI. The Bench has observed that recently the Hon’ble Supreme

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)