← All Phrases

“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
87
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
68
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
54
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
34
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
31
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
25
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
23
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
20
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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 2 of 96 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These three appeals by revenue and three Cross Objections by assessee are directed against common order of CIT(A)-11, Bangalore dated 16.8.2021 for the assessment years ... Respondent. 4.6 Against the orders of Ld. CIT(A), the Department has preferred the above appeals before the Tribunal. 4.7 The assessee also filed cross objections for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 in CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021. 5. The learned DR argued that the land at Thanisandra was held

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 2 of 96 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These three appeals by revenue and three Cross Objections by assessee are directed against common order of CIT(A)-11, Bangalore dated 16.8.2021 for the assessment years ... Respondent. 4.6 Against the orders of Ld. CIT(A), the Department has preferred the above appeals before the Tribunal. 4.7 The assessee also filed cross objections for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 in CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021. 5. The learned DR argued that the land at Thanisandra was held

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

ITA 6673/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

./20116 assessee under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963. As per the learned DR, since the assessee did not file any cross-appeal or cross-objection against the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), therefore, the assessee cannot invoke Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 to question ... bare reading thereof manifest that a Respondent has a right to support the impugned order, without having filed any cross appeal or cross objection. This understanding emerges from the language of the said provision which begins with the words "The Respondent, though he may not have appealed." This means that

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Satya Securities Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008–09, is allowed

ITA 6669/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Mane a/w
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

./20116 assessee under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963. As per the learned DR, since the assessee did not file any cross-appeal or cross-objection against the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), therefore, the assessee cannot invoke Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 to question ... bare reading thereof manifest that a Respondent has a right to support the impugned order, without having filed any cross appeal or cross objection. This understanding emerges from the language of the said provision which begins with the words "The Respondent, though he may not have appealed." This means that

The ACIT CC-1, Thane vs. M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 75/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 76/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Ita No.76/Mum/2021(A.Y.2012-13) The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.98 & 99/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.76& 75/Mum/2021,A.Y. 2012-13 & 2011-12) M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ... Appellant In Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 139Section 194JSection 201(1)Section 40

appeals by the Revenue, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. The assessee has filed Cross Objections in the appeal by the Revenue assailing the findings of the CIT(A) on the jurisdictional issue. ITA NO.75/MUM/2021 & C.O. 99/MUM/2022 ... Revenue is dismissed. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee stated at Bar that he is not pressing jurisdictional issue raised in Cross Objections at this stage. In view of the statement made by ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee, the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

The ACIT CC-1, Thane vs. M/S Renaissance Infrastructure, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 75/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 75/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 76/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Ita No.76/Mum/2021(A.Y.2012-13) The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.98 & 99/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.76& 75/Mum/2021,A.Y. 2012-13 & 2011-12) M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ... Appellant In Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 139Section 194JSection 201(1)Section 40

appeals by the Revenue, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 3. The assessee has filed Cross Objections in the appeal by the Revenue assailing the findings of the CIT(A) on the jurisdictional issue. ITA NO.75/MUM/2021 & C.O. 99/MUM/2022 ... Revenue is dismissed. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee stated at Bar that he is not pressing jurisdictional issue raised in Cross Objections at this stage. In view of the statement made by ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee, the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

wife, namely Mr. Manish Vijay Mehta and Mrs. Urvi Manish Mehta for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. Both the assessee have also filed Cross Objections in these appeals. In case of Manish Vijay Mehta 02. The grounds of appeal raised by the ld. AO against the appellate order passed ... made as under:- ““ISSUES: DEPT. APPEAL 1. Addition of Rs. 30,33,945/- made on basis of base note in hands of non-resident. CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEE: 1. Reopening is bad in law. Non application of independent mind A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

wife, namely Mr. Manish Vijay Mehta and Mrs. Urvi Manish Mehta for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. Both the assessee have also filed Cross Objections in these appeals. In case of Manish Vijay Mehta 02. The grounds of appeal raised by the ld. AO against the appellate order passed ... made as under:- ““ISSUES: DEPT. APPEAL 1. Addition of Rs. 30,33,945/- made on basis of base note in hands of non-resident. CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEE: 1. Reopening is bad in law. Non application of independent mind A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

wife, namely Mr. Manish Vijay Mehta and Mrs. Urvi Manish Mehta for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. Both the assessee have also filed Cross Objections in these appeals. In case of Manish Vijay Mehta 02. The grounds of appeal raised by the ld. AO against the appellate order passed ... made as under:- ““ISSUES: DEPT. APPEAL 1. Addition of Rs. 30,33,945/- made on basis of base note in hands of non-resident. CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEE: 1. Reopening is bad in law. Non application of independent mind A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

wife, namely Mr. Manish Vijay Mehta and Mrs. Urvi Manish Mehta for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. Both the assessee have also filed Cross Objections in these appeals. In case of Manish Vijay Mehta 02. The grounds of appeal raised by the ld. AO against the appellate order passed ... made as under:- ““ISSUES: DEPT. APPEAL 1. Addition of Rs. 30,33,945/- made on basis of base note in hands of non-resident. CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEE: 1. Reopening is bad in law. Non application of independent mind A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta

DCIT (CC) 7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. La Trendz Fabrica Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1538/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

25/MUM/2022 M/s. La TrendzFabrica Pvt. Ltd., O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals and cross objections are filed by the revenue and assessee respectively, against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated ... sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16 as a lead assessment year. A.Y. 2015-16 ITA.No. 1535/MUM/2021 – Revenue Appeal C.O. NO. 22.MUM/2022 - Assessee

DCIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Travancore), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3574/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

restored to the file of ITAT, which shall proceed to hear the parties on the merits of the appeal- as well as the cross objections, on issues, other than the nullity of the assessment order, on merits. The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3476/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

restored to the file of ITAT, which shall proceed to hear the parties on the merits of the appeal- as well as the cross objections, on issues, other than the nullity of the assessment order, on merits. The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) - RG. 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6935/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Are As Follows:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 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

ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Realstone Exports Ltd, Thane

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

ITA 2993/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ito-11(1)(2) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Room No.202, Aayakar Limited Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Marg, C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Mumbai-400020. Apartments, Taki Road, Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. Cross Objection No. 162/Mum/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Ito-11(1)(2) Limited Room No.202, Aayakar Vs. C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Apartments, Taki Road, Mumbai-400020. Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8504K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. H. Usmani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) Of The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Dated 25.01.2017 For A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 68

No.202, Aayakar Limited Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Marg, C-204, 2nd Floor, Vishal Mumbai-400020. Apartments, Taki Road, Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. Cross Objection No. 162/Mum/2019 Arising out of I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) M/s. Realstone Exports बिधम/ ITO-11(1)(2) Limited Room No.202 ... /Date of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This appeal has been filed by the revenue and cross-objection (CO) of the assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai dated 25.01.2017 for A.Y.2011-

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2758/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 199(2)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. No. 259 & 260/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals and cross objections are filed by revenue and assessee respectively, against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT ... appellate order. In the said appellate order, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed in part against which, the assessee filed a cross objection before Hon'ble ITAT which has been disposed off, wherein the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A. Pursuant to such directions

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2757/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 199(2)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. No. 259 & 260/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals and cross objections are filed by revenue and assessee respectively, against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT ... appellate order. In the said appellate order, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed in part against which, the assessee filed a cross objection before Hon'ble ITAT which has been disposed off, wherein the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A. Pursuant to such directions

ACIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jacob Engineering India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3700/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-10(2)(1), M/S. Worley India Pvt. R.No.216-A, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Jacobs Engineering India M.K. Road, Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Ramkrishna Mandir Road, Kondivita, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaach0456J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R. &For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 92C

aside and the ITAT is directed to hear the parties to the extent of considering ground nos.1, 2 and 3 of the cross objections filed by appellant against Department’s grounds and also ground nos.2, 3 and 5 of the Department’s appeals which are also quoted above and pass ... Worley India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Jacobs Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) by filing the present appeal and cross objections sought to set aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution

DCIT, Chennai vs. K.Dhandapani and Co. Ltd., Chengalput

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., Corporate Circle-4(2), No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O No.109/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.1428/Chny/2017] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., The Dcit, No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle-4(2), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45

Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 - 2 - ITA No.1428/Chny/2017 & CO No.109/Chny/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vice President : This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee, both are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, in ITA No.27/2015-16 dated 29.03.2017. The assessment ... capital gains. We affirm the findings of CIT(A) on this issue and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. C.O.No.109/CHNY/2017 7. Coming to cross objection of the assessee, the first effective issue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) partly sustaining the addition u/s.43B of the Act towards

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Spoorthi Constructions, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 507/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

Date of hearing : 27.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal of the revenue and cross objections by the assessee is against the order of CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment & CO No.3/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 9 Centre, Delhi [NFAC] dated