“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

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Anil Pukhraj Jain, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 89/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

Section 143(3)

Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AHAPJ8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/SRT/2021 (a/o ITA No.89/SRT/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414 ... /Date of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the Assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09, are directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Saul Space Project Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4352/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.4352/Del/2015, A.Y. 2009-10

Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by DCIT, Circle-17, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer or ‘AO’). Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee. 2. Assessee filed return of income of Rs. 61,58,155/- and during the assessment proceedings, Ld. AO had reassess the income ... POCM should be followed and worked out. 3. The revenue is in appeal raising following grounds and the assessee also filed cross objections :- ITA No. 4352.Del.2015 1. “The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts of the case in deleting

The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1), Raipur vs. M/S Sankalp Realities, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.47/Rpr/2018 Co. No.01/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sankalp Realities, 28/620 Anand Niwas, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Abcsf6391P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

No.01/RPR/2018 A.Y.2009-10 13. As the appeal filed by the revenue had been dismissed by us in terms of our aforesaid observations, therefore, the cross-objection filed by the assessee having been rendered as merely academic in nature is dismissed. 14. Resultantly, both the appeal filed by the revenue and cross

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Trilok Chand Chaudhary, New Delhi

In the result, Cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 4282/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Choudhary, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12 .01.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) – 26, New Delhi dated 12.03.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year ... levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'] and the Cross Objection of the assessee is that the penalty order has been passed based upon the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the Act r.w.s

M/S Lok Vikas Housing Funds Ltd.( Now Lok Vikas Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. The Addl.CIT Range-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/JPR/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 254(1)Section 269DSection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Vikas Housing Funds Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Jaipur the ld. CIT(A) is a single order and there is no cross objection filed by the department to concede the issue raised by the ld. DR. Therefore, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the appeal

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1567/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

No.2971-2974 /Del/2010) (Page 281 to 284 of Paperbook Part 1), held as under : "4. Regarding various grounds raised by the assessee in the cross objections relating to existence of business connections in India and accrual and arising of Income in India and the deemed accrual and deemed arising of Income ... Appellant and Successor of GII), the Delhi ITAT vide its order dated 29th June 2012 (ITA No. 1306 to 1309/Del/2012), dismissed the cross objections raised by GNBV on PE/BC ground. It was held that: "21. Now coming to the cross objections filed by the assessee in all these years four

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

ACIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi vs. Icra Limited, New Delhi

ITA 9199/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. M/S. Icra Limited 1105, 11Th Floor, Circle-12(1), New Delhi Kailash Building 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aaacg7758B Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Limited 1105, 11th Floor, Circle-12(1), New Delhi Kailash Building 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 PAN : AAACG7758B Appellant Respondent Cross Objection no. 42/Del/2022 (in appeal no. 9199/Del/2019) (Assessment Year : 2016-17) M/s. ICRA Limited Vs. ACIT, B-710, Statesman House Circle-12(1), 148, Barakhamba ... Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-12(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer or ‘AO’) and Cross objection have been filed by assessee. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. The Revenue has come in appeal raising following grounds :- “1. Whether

ITO, Ward-4(1), Patna vs. Jagdish Ray, Patna

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

ITA 102/PAT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Section 10(37)Section 250Section 96

No.102/Pat/20 AY 2014-15 & CO No.01/Pat/2021 (ITA No. 102/Pat/20) AY 2014-15 Jagdish Ray PER MANISH BORAD, AM. This captioned appeal and corresponding cross objection of the revenue and assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 are directed against the order dt. 30.06.2020 passed u/s. 250 of the Income ... hearing. 2. ITA No.102/Pat/20 AY 2014-15 & CO No.01/Pat/2021 (ITA No. 102/Pat/20) AY 2014-15 Jagdish Ray Grounds raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection: 1. For that the instant appeal is completely bar by the Notification No. 17/2019 Dt.08th August 2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct

ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Railtel Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross-objection of the Assessee is 15

ITA 8652/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Omprakash RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri A K Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

Building, 16-Sansad 2nd Floor, C.R. Bldg., vs. Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi. New Delhi 110 001 PIN – 110 002 PAN AABCR7176C (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.197/Del./2022 Arising out of ITA.No.8652/Del./2020 - Assessment Year 2011-2012 Railtel Corporation Ltd., The ACIT, Circle-21(1), 10th Floor, Bank ... ITA.No.8652/Del./2019 CO No. 197/Del/2022 Railtel Corporation of India Ltd. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : This appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee are directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi, dated 21.08.2019 in Appeal No.10305/300/CIT

ITO (E), Rohtak vs. Lahoria Education Society, Hisar

In the result, the appeal under consideration filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 5976/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Chand, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Navin Gupta, Ld. Advocate

Section 250(6)

August 2019, whereby it was clarified that revised monetary limits so mentioned in the circular 17/2019 will also be applicable to all pending SLPs/Appeals / Cross Objections/ References. Hence the instant appeal deserves dismissal being not maintainable. 3. Ld. Sr. DR did not refute the claim of the Assessee and accepted

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Munni Entertainment P. Ltd., Panchkula

In the result all the appeals of Revenue and 14

ITA 4954/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153C

DCIT, Central Munny Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Circle, Noida 689, Sector -6, Panchkula, vs. Haryana PAN AAGCM6628P (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.169 to 171/Del./2018 Arising out of ITA No. 4952 to 4954/Del./2018 Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Munny Entertainment Pvt. The DCIT, Central Ltd., Circle, Noida ... 4954/Del./2018 CO Nos.169 to 171/Del./2018 Munny Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : These appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee are directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur, dated 25.04.2018 in Appeal No.CIT(A)-IV/11259

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Munni Entertainment P. Ltd., Panchkula

In the result all the appeals of Revenue and 14

ITA 4953/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153C

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Munni Entertainment P. Ltd., Panchkula

In the result all the appeals of Revenue and 14

ITA 4952/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153C

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, Usa

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7354/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Panda, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 07.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 03.01.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals and cross objection filed by the assessee and revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)- 43, New Delhi dated 21.09.2017. 2. The revenue has raised ... Panel {hereinabove referred to as the “DRP"} are bad in law and void ab- initio.” 4. The revenue has raised the following grounds in Cross Objection No. 54/Del/2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14:- “1. That on facts and in law, the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-43 New Delhi

Sabre Decision Technologies International Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5782/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 44DSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paramount Probuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 1392/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Hearing : 26.12.2022 Date of Order : 03.01.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 2 ITA No.1392/Del./2016 CO No.159/Del/2016 This appeal by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee arise out of the order of ld. CIT (A)-25, Delhi dated 31.12.2015 pertains to assessment year ... tenable on facts and in law. 5. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.” 3. The grounds of cross objections raised by the assessee read as under :- “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India, New Delhi

ITA 5737/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 50C

Movement New Delhi Foundation of India, A-14, Mohan Co-operative Indl. Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044 PAN No.AAACS8191F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Cross Objection No.11/Del/2020 (In ITA No.5737/DEL/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Spiritual Regeneration DCIT Movement Vs Circle -2 (1) Foundation of India, A-14, New Delhi Mohan Co-operative Indl ... Date of hearing: 02/01/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 02/01/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: ITA No.5737/Del/2016 is the appeal by the revenue and Cross objection No.11/Del/2020 is the cross objection of the assessee preferred against the very same order of the CIT(A)-36, New Delhi dated 11.08.2016 pertaining

The ACIT, Ernakulam vs. M/S.Holiday Marketing P. Ltd, Cochin

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 133ASection 148

therefore cannot be applied generally with regard to any other cases. 16. Since we have dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, the cross objections raised by the assessee has become academic and does not warrant any separate adjudication. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajiv Ratan, New Delhi

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

ITA 1434/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit, Cc -6(4), Vs. Shri Rajiv Rattan Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Air India Building, Vasant Vihar, Nariman Point, New Delhi - 110057 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 126/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shri Rajiv Rattan Vs. The Dcit, Cc -6(4), 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, Vasant Vihar, Air India Building, New Delhi - 110057 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra Respondent By : Meet Shah

For Appellant: Smt. Riddhi MishraFor Respondent: Meet Shah

Section 153CSection 245D(4)

Meet Shah Date of Hearing 15.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal and cross objection filed by the revenue are directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-54, Mumbai, dated ... Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed. C.O. No.126/Mum/2022 9. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the cross objection filed by the assessee were not deliberated. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the revenue, therefore, the cross objection filed by the assessee stand dismissed