“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

M/S Direct Logistic India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 805/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Direct Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 9(3)(3) 2102 B-Wing, Oberoi Park View Room No. 471 Thakur Village, Kandivali (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400101 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacd8774D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sawana & Shri Dinesh Kukreja Department By : Smt Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sawana &For Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

above grounds of appeal.” 6 M/s. Direct Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., 7. Assessee has filed additional ground and after considering the cross objections of the Ld.DR the additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. At the time of hearing , Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the return

Dy.CIT 7(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas,

ITA 2304/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit, Circle-7(1)(1), M/S Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Phoenix House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaccm 2563 P Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ketan Ved, AR

124/M/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue and cross by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the assessee are directed against order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the assessee ... time of add a new ground which may be necessary at the time of hearing. 3. The grounds raised cross The grounds raised cross-objection of the assessee are objection of the assessee are reproduced as under: reproduced as under: 1. Transfer Pricing grounds: Transfer Pricing grounds

ITO 34 (1)(6), Mumbai vs. Shri Anurag Shivcharan Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 197/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.197/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-34(1)(6) बिधम/ Anuraag Shivcharan Room No. 726, Kautilya Agarwal Vs. Bhawan, G Block, Bkc, B-607/608, Lok Tirth Bandra East, Mumbai- Bldg, Marve Road, Malad 400051. West, Mumbai-400064. Cross Objection No. 145/Mum/2021 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.197/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Anuraag Shivcharan Ito-34(1)(6) बिधम/ Agarwal Room No. 726, Kautilya Vs. B-607/608, Lok Tirth Bldg, Bhawan, G Block, Bkc, Marve Road, Malad West, Bandra East, Mumbai- Mumbai-400064. 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Addpa1846Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Simoni Chauhan Revenue By: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeal & Cross-Objection Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-46, Mumbai Dated 23.10.2019 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.11,67,597/- Made By Ao Holding That The Purchase & Sale Transaction In The Shares Of M/S.

For Appellant: Ms. Simoni ChauhanFor Respondent: Shri Mahender Ahuja

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

Kautilya Agarwal Vs. Bhawan, G Block, BKC, B-607/608, Lok Tirth Bandra East, Mumbai- Bldg, Marve Road, Malad 400051. West, Mumbai-400064. Cross Objection No. 145/Mum/2021 Arising out of I.T.A. No.197/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Anuraag Shivcharan ITO-34(1)(6) बिधम/ Agarwal Room No. 726, Kautilya ... 23/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are revenue appeal and cross-objection preferred by assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-46, Mumbai dated 23.10.2019 for AY. 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nsl Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 22/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 22/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Nsl Properties Private Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aaccn7387G] (अपीलधर्थी / Appellant) (प्रत् यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

case of M/s. NSL Properties Pvt. Ltd (“the assessee”), for the assessment year 2013-14, Revenue preferred this appeal. 2. Though the assessee preferred cross objections, there was a delay of 498 days in filing the same by the assessee. Appeal memo in this case was served on the assessee ... 05/02/2021 and the cross objections should have been filed on or before 07/03/2021. But actually the cross objections were filed on 18/07/2022 thereby making a delay of 498 days. However, in view of the order dated 10/01/2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings

DCIT, CC - 2(4), Mumbai vs. Mishal Nickunj Shah Shri. L/H. of Late Nickunj Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2312/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Date of Pronouncement : 28.12.2022 C.O. Nos. 138, 139 & 140/MUM/2022 Shri MishalNickunj Shah O R D E R PER BENCH 1. These appeals and cross objections are filed by revenue and assessee against common order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–48, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated ... 140/MUM/2022 Shri MishalNickunj Shah 12. Aggrieved revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal, against which assessee also filed cross objection. “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made

DCIT, CC - 2(4), Mumbai vs. Mishal Nickunj Shah Shri. L/H. of Late Nickunj Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2311/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg

Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

JCIT(OSD)-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jyothy Laboratories Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3876/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Solgy Jose T. KottaramFor Respondent: J.D. Mistry

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 229Section 80I

Jyothy Laboratories Limited आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): Both the appeals filed by the revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are directed against order of the ld. CIT(A)-17 dated 16.03.2018. Since, both these appeals are based on identical issue on common ... Poly Vinyle Emulsion Unit: 13. Since as supra the claim of deduction u/s 80IC has been adjudicated in favour of the assessee, therefore, the cross objection pertaining to without prejudice grounds for the claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IC as discussed at para 4.6.8 of the order

DCIT-10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Jyothy Laboratories Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3875/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Solgy Jose T. KottaramFor Respondent: J.D. Mistry

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 229Section 80I

ACIT -1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Adhiraj Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1410/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Sinha Date of Hearing 07.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 27.12.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 30.3.2022 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ... deleting the addition of Rs. 7.20 crore made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the I.T. Act. In the cross objection the assessee is challenging the validity of reopening of the assessment. 2 M/s. Adhiraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 3. Facts relating to the case are stated in brief

DCIT Cir 4(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gemini Engi Fab Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1457/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rutuja Pawar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, D.R

Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

/143(3) of the IT. Act, 1961 and decide the legal issue in favour of the Assessee and accordingly, allow the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. 12. Following the consistent view taken in the assessment year 2001-02 in the Assessee's Cross objection, as aforesaid, the another Cross

DCIT- CC- 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Shree Global Tradefin Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1374/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 7(1) Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. Mumbai 35, Ashok Chambers, Vs. Broach Street, Devji Ratansey Marg, Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 2975 J (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. Mumbai 35, Ashok Chambers, Vs. Broach Street, Devji Ratansey Marg, Mumbai-400 009 PAN/GIR No. AAACB 2975 J (Revenue) : (Assessee) Cross Objection No. 115/Mum/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 1374/Mum2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1) 35, Ashok Chambers ... Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short)-49, Mumbai passed u/s.250

ACIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wyeth Lederle Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2912/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 7(3) Vs. M/S Wyeth Ltd Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Mk Road, Worli Level 6& 7 Plating Mumbai – 400 020. Plot No. C-59, G Block Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 7(3) Vs. M/S Wyeth Ltd Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Mk Road, Worli Level 6& 7 Plating Mumbai – 400 020. Plot No. C-59, G Block Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A Appellant .. Respondent

For Respondent: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 801Section 80H

Pronouncement 28.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: These are the appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objection is filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai passed ... revenue. ITA No. 2912/Mum/2005, 2285/Mum/2007 & CO. 184/Mum/2007. CO. 184/Mum/2007, A.Y 2003-04 14. Since the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the cross objection becomes infructuous and is also dismissed. 15. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order

ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S the Oriental Merchantile Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 73/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Oriental Mercantile Co. Ltd. ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are the appeals preferred by the revenue and the cross objection preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated ... period. 3. The revenue has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on various grounds in both the years and assessee by way of cross-objection has prayed before the Tribunal that the tax effect involved in these appeals are below taxable limits in terms of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019

ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S the Oriental Mercanjtile Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 72/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the revenue’s corresponding grounds stand dismissed

ITA 1322/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143Section 160(1)Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

तारीख /Date of pronouncement : 21-12-2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by Revenue and Cross Objections by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai ... effect. para 8(c) Where RAP in the case has been accepted by the department." The grounds taken by the assessee in cross-objections read as under: 1. The Assessee had appealed to the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) against the disallowance of Rs.2,19,54,165 under the head

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Karburi Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 461/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 461, 462 & 463/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S Karburi Properties Room No. 1928, 19Th Ltd., Floor, Air India Bldg 324, Master Mind – Iv Nariman Point, Royal Palms, Aarey Milk Mumbai – 400 021. Colony, Goregoan East, Mumbai - 400065

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh. DR &

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

187/Mum/2018 M/s. Karburi Properties Ltd, Mumbai. आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: These three appeals are filed by the revenue and the cross objections are filed by the assessee against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 53, Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s ... Since the issues in these appeals and cross objections are common and identical, hence are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the ITA No.461/Mum/2018 for the A.Y.2007-08 as a lead case and the facts narrated. The revenue has raised

M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO by the asssessee are dismissed and the asseessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7278/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 7278/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2010-11) & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 (2010-11) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 29/Mum/2018) Mercator Ltd Vs. Dcit 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Range 5(2) B Wing, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Mumbai- 400021. Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Dy. Cit Vs. Mercator Lines Ltd Range 5(2)(2), Rno.571 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower- Aayakar Bhavan, Mk B Wing, Nariman Point Road, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai - 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm5007A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Revenue By : Mr.Krishnakumarmishra.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: 29/Mum/2018 & Co No. 21/Mum/2019 M/S. Mercator Ltd, Mumbai. The Cross Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A))-57, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act & The Assessee Has Filed The Cross Objection(Co) In The Revenue Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nikhil Tiwari.ARFor Respondent: Mr.KrishnaKumarMishra.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A))-57, Mumbai passed u/s 250 of the Act and the assessee has filed the cross objection(CO) in the revenue appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Mercator

ITO -8(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4005/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148

Date of Pronouncement : 20 . 12 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: For the sake of brevity aforesaid appeal and cross objections emanated from common impugned order dated 15.03.2017 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] are being ... Revenue’) and the cross objector M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) by filing the present appeals and cross objections sought to set aside the impugned order even dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred

ITO-8(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4004/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwinkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 1324/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Hemantkumar Chimanlal

Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

Matalia आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): All three appeals of the revenue vide ITA Nos. 1322 to 1324/Mum/2022 and Cross Objection of the assessee vide C.O. Nos. 118 to 120/Mum/2022 are directed against the combined order of the ld. CIT(A)-49, dated ... made w/s.153(C)/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and decide the legal issue in favour of the Assessee and accordingly, allow the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. 12. Following the consistent view taken in the assessment year 2001-02 in the Assessee's Cross objection, as aforesaid