“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Bangalore dated 28.2.2018 for the assessment years 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2008-09 in respect of above two assessees and the Cross objections filed by the assessees against the appeals of the revenue. The grounds raised by the revenue in its appeals are common in nature except figures and hence ... revealed from his tax returns filed with US Revenue authorities and hence his creditworthiness has not been proved. 2. The assessees have raised Cross objections wherein following common grounds are raised which are herein below:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

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

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

ITA 470/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

pronouncement: 27.10.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: 01. This is the bunch of 4 appeals filed by Assessing officer and 4 cross objections filed by Assessee for two Assessment years i.e. AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 where in ld. CIT [A] has deleted the addition ... Vidisha properties Limited and for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 in case of Jogia Properties Limited as captioned above. 05. Assessee has raised cross objection for both these years challenging the reopening of the assessment raising following grounds for A.Y. 2007-08:- “1. On the facts and circumstances

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

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

ITA 469/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

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

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

ITA 467/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

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

In the result, for AY 2007-08, in case of Vedisa Properties

ITA 466/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Inventurus Knowledge Soltions P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 2403/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabci 5573 J Co No. 249/Mum/2019 (Arising In Ita No. 2403/Mum/2018 For A.Y. 2011–12) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Inventurus Knowledge Income Tax Solutions Private Limited Central Circle 3(2)(1) 151, Nariman Bhavan, Room No. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Vinay Shah Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Sc Tiwari/ Ms Umamagswari M, Ars Revenue By : Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri SC Tiwari/For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92C

section 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 5th May, 2015 was partly allowed. 02. The Assessee has also filed cross objection no. 249/Mum/2019 in the above appeal raising following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... respondent-assessee against adjustment as made in the order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act and followed in the assessment order.” 03. The cross objection is merely supportive in nature. 04. The brief facts of the case of the shows thatassessee is a company engaged in the business of providing

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the application of the assessee under rule 27 is ...

ITA 5744/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Pebble Bay Developers Tax-13(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, Vs. Raheja Chambers, Linking Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Main Avenue Santacruz Mumbai-400020. (West), Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aaccg 1645 E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Vranda Matkari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda Matkari, DR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

entitled for moving application under that the assessee is not entitled for moving application under ITAT Rules and the assessee should have filed cross objection if aggrieved and the assessee should have filed cross objection if aggrieved and the assessee should have filed cross objection if aggrieved with the order ... resultant tax liability on the assessee, therefore no appeal or cross and thus no resultant tax liability on the assessee, therefore no appeal or cross objection has been preferred by the assessee. But the issue of validity of the tion has been preferred by the assessee. But the issue

DCIT Central Cir (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Raksha Bullion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Assessee C.O. No. 78/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Assessee Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Vimal Punmiya, Ca Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

376/Mum/2022 & C.O. 78/Mum/2022 M/s Raksha Bullion 2. The assessee in its C.O. has raised the following grounds of appeal: Grounds of cross objections Tax effect relating to each Ground of cross objection (see note below) 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT (E), Mumbai vs. Vidya Vikas Education Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 1609/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Anant PaiFor Respondent: Sh. Vranda U Matkarni – Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 250

assessee before Ld. CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved with this order of Ld. CIT (A), the Revenue preferred this appeal and assessee filed Cross Objection. We have gone through the order of AO, order of Ld. CIT (A) and considered the submissions of the assessee filed along with Paper Book

DCIT, Ncc-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S. the Coimbatore District Consumer Co-Operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., Coimbatore

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

ITA 188/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 188/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250

Rules, 1963”) submitted that although the CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee, the assessee could not file the appeal as well as cross objection on the above issue, with inadvertent error, however filed a petition u/r. 27 of the AT Rules, 1963 and justified its case on fair ... appeal. In this case, the assessee has taken a conscious decision not to file appeal against the order of the CIT(A) and also cross objection, because the assessee has got the relief from the CIT(A) on alternate plea. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, filing

ACIT 25 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Anjana Laxmidas Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7944/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 25 (2) Room Number 220, Second Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Floor, Vora Kautilya Bhavan 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv0293L Co 70/Mumbai/2021 (Assessment Years 2016 – 17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Tax – 25 (2) Vora Room Number 220, Second 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Floor, Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha CIT DR

Section 143Section 68

books of the Assessee, therefore, the Assessee is bound to prove the nature and source of the credit 3. Assessee has also filed cross objection raising following grounds: - on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in challenging the order of CIT (A): - (i) solely ... learned assessing officer is aggrieved and has preferred this appeal as per various grounds of appeal stated above. The Assessee has also filed cross objection, but it merely supports the order of the learned CIT appeal. 11. The learned CIT DR submitted as Under: - a) Only documents submitted to prove

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M Pallonji Enerprises P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 68

204/M/2018 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the This appeal by the Revenue and cross objections by the and cross objections by the assessee are directed against order dated 26/12/2016 passed by assessee are directed against order dated 26/12/2016 passed by assessee ... dicating that the transaction of share premium was not genuine?" share premium was not genuine?" 2.1 The grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objections are grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objections are grounds raised by the assessee in its cross objections are reproduced as under

Infiniti Wholesale Ltd ( Formerly Knwon As Woolwonths Wholesale (India) P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7718/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Michael Jerald

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

while upholding the directions given by the ld. DRP, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, cross objection preferred by the assessee becomes in fructuous and therefore, the Cross Objection is also dismissed.‖ 15. In the case before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

Pronouncement : 13.10.2022 & CO 2/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 27 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal of the revenue and cross objection by the assessee is against the order of CIT(Appeals)-11, Bangalore dated 14.10.2019 passed for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Brief facts ... estimated cost of construction @ Rs.2505 per sq.ft., for the purpose of determining the capital gain. The issues contended by the assessee through cross objections are with regard to :- i. Initiation of proceedings by the AO u/s. 153C instead of the proceedings u/s. 153A. ii. The proceedings u/s. 153C is initiated

ITO 1(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Perfect Nano Solar P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 89/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

89/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2009-10) C.0. NO.165/MUM/2018 M/s. Perfect Nano Solar Pvt. Ltd, ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal and cross objection are filed by the revenue and assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated ... issue in favour of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and assessee has filed cross objection. 10. We observe from the record that both revenue as well as assessee has filed the appeal as well as cross objection with a delay

Bhavesh Ghanshyam Advani, Mumbai vs. CIT(Intl Tax)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5808/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

have appealed against such order or any part thereof, within thirty days of the receipt of the notice, file a memorandum of cross-objections, verified in the prescribed manner, against any part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal ... within the time specified in sub- section (3).] (5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross- objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub- section (4), if it is satisfied that there

ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Shreyas Vasant Parikh, Mumbai

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

ITA 1580/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Vasant Parikh R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Khar (W), Mumbai- Road, Road, Mumbai- 400052. 400020. Cross Objection No. 30/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Shreyas Vasant Parikh Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepp1118J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. R. Choksi Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri V. R. ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 153CSection 68

Vasant Parikh R. No.676B, 6th Floor, 5 Raj Mayur, 19th Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Khar (W), Mumbai- Road, Road, Mumbai- 400052. 400020. Cross Objection No. 30/Mum/2022 Arising out of I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Shreyas Vasant Parikh ACIT, CC-7(1) बिधम/ 5 Raj Mayur ... Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the cross- objection (CO) is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [hereinafter referred

ITO - 30(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Balvindrsingh Harbansingh Kohli, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.438/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Income Tax Officer – 30(1)(1), Room No.436, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, “G” Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Balvindersingh Harbansingh Kohli, A-101, Aster Tower, Vasant Valley Ii, Film City Road, Malad (East) Mumbai – 400 097. Pan: Acepk-3529-L ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.121/Mum/2022 [Arising Out Of Ita No.438/Mum/2021(A.Y.2014-15)]

For Appellant: Shri Chetan M. KachaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shah

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 68

dismissed being devoid of any merit. 7. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. C.O No.121/MUM/2022 8. The assessee has filed Cross Objections in appeal by the Revenue supporting the findings of CIT(A) Since, we have dismissed appeal of the Revenue, the Cross Objections filed by assessee ... have become infructuous and the same are dismissed as such. 5 9. In the result, appeal by Revenue and cross objections by assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 07th day of October , 2022. ( GAGAN GOYAL ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक