“cross objection”

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

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

Asst CIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: CO No.145/Mum/2016 ITA No.1794 & 1715/Mum/2016 Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd.; A.Y. 11-12 01. These are two appeals and one cross objection in case of the assessee M/s Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited [ the Assessee/ Appellant] for the same assessment year. is filed ... value of contract, and the aspect of no. of contracts’ is vital in determining the brokerage to be charged.” 04. The grounds in the Cross Objection No.145/Mum/2016 is as under:- “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 4(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: CO No.145/Mum/2016 ITA No.1794 & 1715/Mum/2016 Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd.; A.Y. 11-12 01. These are two appeals and one cross objection in case of the assessee M/s Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited [ the Assessee/ Appellant] for the same assessment year. is filed ... value of contract, and the aspect of no. of contracts’ is vital in determining the brokerage to be charged.” 04. The grounds in the Cross Objection No.145/Mum/2016 is as under:- “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

hearing : 14.10.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 14.12.2022 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. These are two sets of cross-appeals and cross objections pertaining to Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 arise out of the order, dated 03.03.2006, and 18.11.2008 passed by the Ld. Commissioner ... 3130/Mum/2006 & CO No. 324/Mum/2006 ITA No. 1510 & 1444/Mum/2009 & CO No. 160/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 The Assessee has also filed Cross-Objection in appeal preferred by the Revenue. 1.4. The appeals involve common issues arising for identical facts and therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

hearing : 14.10.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 14.12.2022 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. These are two sets of cross-appeals and cross objections pertaining to Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 arise out of the order, dated 03.03.2006, and 18.11.2008 passed by the Ld. Commissioner ... 3130/Mum/2006 & CO No. 324/Mum/2006 ITA No. 1510 & 1444/Mum/2009 & CO No. 160/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 The Assessee has also filed Cross-Objection in appeal preferred by the Revenue. 1.4. The appeals involve common issues arising for identical facts and therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

hearing : 14.10.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 14.12.2022 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. These are two sets of cross-appeals and cross objections pertaining to Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2003-04 arise out of the order, dated 03.03.2006, and 18.11.2008 passed by the Ld. Commissioner ... 3130/Mum/2006 & CO No. 324/Mum/2006 ITA No. 1510 & 1444/Mum/2009 & CO No. 160/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 The Assessee has also filed Cross-Objection in appeal preferred by the Revenue. 1.4. The appeals involve common issues arising for identical facts and therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being

Joint CIT (OSD) Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Nabendu Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 875/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Nabendu Engineering Jcit (Osd), Cen. Cir-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, 902, Pratistha बिधम/ 85, Podar Centre, Parel Bhavan, Old Cgo Post Office Lane, Opp. Vs. Bldg.(Annex), M. K. Road, Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 012 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaecn2103N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr Shri Siddharth Kothari, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C For Ay 2013-14. 2

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

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

Revenue Represented by : Shri S.H. Usmani Date of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 12.12.2022 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals and cross objections are filed by the assessee and Revenue against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT ... accordingly the same are dismissed as not pressed. C.O. NO. 287/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007-08) – REVENUE APPEAL 27. Revenue has raised following grounds in its cross objection: - "1. The CIT(A) has erred in taking the rental income at 12% of the cost of land and building, which will not change

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

Revenue Represented by : Shri S.H. Usmani Date of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 12.12.2022 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals and cross objections are filed by the assessee and Revenue against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT ... accordingly the same are dismissed as not pressed. C.O. NO. 287/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2007-08) – REVENUE APPEAL 27. Revenue has raised following grounds in its cross objection: - "1. The CIT(A) has erred in taking the rental income at 12% of the cost of land and building, which will not change

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Exxon Mobile Company India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection by the

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asst. Cit-6(1)(1) M/S. Exxon Mobile Company India Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Private Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Kalpatru Point, Plot No. 107, Road No. 8, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aaace 3157 H (Revenue) (Assessee) : & C.O. No. 125/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2016/Mum/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Exxon Mobile Company India Asst. Cit-6(1)(1) Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Private Ltd. Kalpatru Point, Plot No. 107, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Road No. 8, Sion (E), Mumbai-400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aaace 3157 H (Assessee) : (Revenue) Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla / Adish Shenoy Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2022

Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2022 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, against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) – 56, Mumbai, passed u/s.250 ... December, 2015. Hence, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect prescribed by the department. 10. The cross objection raised by the assessee is also hereby dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection

DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cactus Communication Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

pronouncement of order : 30.11.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objection filed by the Assessee arise from the order of Commissioner of ITA. No. 1491/Mum/2022 & CO No. 134/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Income Tax (Appeals ... correct to delete the disallowance made by the AO.” 3. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of Cross Objections: " 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) / Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in: a. Disregarding the functional profile

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Telepeformance Global Services P. Ltd. ( Formerly Known As M/S.Intelenet Global Services P.Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Date of Pronouncement 30/11/2022 . आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No. 6473/Mum/2018 and cross objection in C.O. No. 227/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2011-12 arise out of the order by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax-20, Mumbai dated 07/06/2018 (ld.CIT ... Since the relief is granted on merits, we do not deem it fit to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in its Cross Objection challenging the validity of re-assessment. No opinion is rendered herein by us on the same and they are left open. 12. In the result

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Jogia Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.468 /Mum/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) Dcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S Vedisa Properties R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Limited, 324, Air India Building, Master Mind- Iv, Royal Nariman Point, Palms, Aarey Milk Colony Mumbai – 400 021 Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 065 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcv3199B Respondent .. Appellant

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Both the appeals filed by the assessee in the case of Vedisa & Jogia Properties and Cross Objection Nos. 192 & 195/Mum/2018 are based on identical facts on similar issue, therefore, for the sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated together by taking ... 471/Mum/2018, therefore, applying the same findings mutatis mutandis, this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. C.O. 192 & 195/Mum/2018 7. Both the Cross Objection are based on similar issue and identical fact, therefore both the C.O. are adjudicated together. 8. Vide the cross objection the assessee has challenged the validity

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Vedisa Properties Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.468 /Mum/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) Dcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S Vedisa Properties R. No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Limited, 324, Air India Building, Master Mind- Iv, Royal Nariman Point, Palms, Aarey Milk Colony Mumbai – 400 021 Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 065 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcv3199B Respondent .. Appellant

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Both the appeals filed by the assessee in the case of Vedisa & Jogia Properties and Cross Objection Nos. 192 & 195/Mum/2018 are based on identical facts on similar issue, therefore, for the sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated together by taking ... 471/Mum/2018, therefore, applying the same findings mutatis mutandis, this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. C.O. 192 & 195/Mum/2018 7. Both the Cross Objection are based on similar issue and identical fact, therefore both the C.O. are adjudicated together. 8. Vide the cross objection the assessee has challenged the validity

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Dreamz Dwellers LLP (Legal Representative of M/S.Megacorp Developers Private Limited), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15

MRPL for ect of the business of the erstwhile MRPL for the year ending 31.03.2006, in the cross the year ending 31.03.2006, in the cross-objection before the objection before the ITAT, for the first time (in the appeal preferred by the Revenue), ITAT, for the first time ... cross 11. Appeals were filed to the CIT (and a cross 11. Appeals were filed to the CIT (and a cross-objection, to ITAT) – by MRPL “represented by by MRPL “represented by MIPL”. 12. At no point in time 12. At no point in time – the earliest being