“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

ACIT Cir 7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Parenteral Drugs (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2777/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 80I

orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeals filed for the year 2002- 03 and 2005-06 were also dismissed. The cross objections filed by the assessee for the year 2002-03 were also rejected. 9 M/s. Parenteral Drugs (India) Pvt. Ltd., 3.8. The ld. AR placed

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the assessee Cross Objection is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Savita Oil Of Income Tax-Cc-8(4) Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 66-67, 658, Aayakarbhavan, Narimanbhawan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai- 400 021 Pan No.Aaacs7934A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 271Section 271(1)Section 275Section 80I

passed under Section 271(1)C and 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter in short “the Act”) and the assessee has filed cross objections(C.O.). The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal. 1) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... with any new cogent material evidence or information to take a different view. Accordingly, we quash the penalty notice and allow the ground of cross objections in favour of the assessee. 9. Since, we have allowed the cross objection filed by the assessee and the revenue appeal becomes in fructuous

ACIT Cent. Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D.Y.Patil Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2294/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Cit, Cc-7(1), Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaatd 8919 M Appellant Respondent Co No. 58/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 2293/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Co No. 59/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 2294/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr. D.Y. Patil Education Society, Asst. Cit, Cc-7(1), 869, E Ward, Kasaba Vawada, R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Kolhapur-416006. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaatd 8919 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr/Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR/Mahita Nair

Section 153C

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the Revenue and cross These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 28.09.2021 assessee are directed against a common order dated 28.09.2021 assessee ... Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. The grounds and cross The grounds and cross-objection of the assessee for objection of the assessee for assessment year 2011 assessment year 2011-12 are reproduced as under: ITA No. 2293/MUM/2021 Assessment Year

ACIT CC 7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D.Y.Patil Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2293/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR/Mahita Nair

Section 153C

ITO 23 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sandhya Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and C

ITA 7028/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale&

For Respondent: Prakash Jhunjhunwala

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

Pronouncement 29.09.2022 ITA No.7028/Mum/2019 & C.0.54/Mum/2021 Income Tax Officer-23(3)(2) Vs. Sandhya Enterprises He / ORDER Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal and cross objection filed by the revenue are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-34, Mumbai, which in turn arises from the order passed

Asst. Comm. of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Exxon Mobile Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400022

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross-

ITA 1283/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Exxon Mobile Company Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Aayakar Road No. 8, Sion (East), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 113/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1283/Mum/2022) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Exxon Mobile Company Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, Road Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 8, Sion (East), 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Mumbai-400020. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. A/W Mr. Dhiraj Jain Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

Section 195Section 40

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue and cross This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee are directed against the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by assessee are directed against the order dated 24.03.2022 passed ... above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be be set aside and that of the AO be restored. restored. 2.1 The cross-objections raised by the assessee are reproduced as objections raised by the assessee are reproduced as objections raised by the assessee are reproduced as under

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

being identical, respectfully following the consistent stand of Tribunal, we dismiss ground no.2 of revenue’s appeal which makes ground no.1 of assessee’s cross-objection as infructuous.” 27. On a careful reading of the above order of the Tribunal, we observe that Coordinate Bench decided the issue in favour ... issue, would not require any interference on our part. Ground No.3 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed which render ground no.2 of assessee’s cross objections infructuous.” 37. On a careful reading of the above order of the Tribunal, we observe that Coordinate Bench decided the issue in favour

Dy CIT Circle-3, Thane vs. M/S Pushpa Developers Co., Thane

In the result, we dismiss this ground of appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 55/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Vs M/S Pushpa Developers Company Tax, Circle-3, Thane G-8, Vanraj Chs Ltd, Near Forest Room No.02, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Colony, Kopri, Thane (E)-400 601 Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Pan : Aadfp5631M Estate, Thane(W)-400 604 Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

appeal filed by the Revenue. 6. The other grounds filed by the Revenue are ancillary to ground 1 and are hereby dismissed accordingly. CROSS OBJECTION NO.77/Mum/2022 7. The assessee has filed this cross objection challenging the addition of Rs.1,57,43,696/- on account of alleged difference in valuation ... difference in the value arrived at by the Assessing Officer from that of the value adopted by the assessee. In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

14th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (w), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACF0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/s J. P. Morgan India ACIT-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16th floor, Air India Mauritius ... Company Mauritius Limited आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee against order dated 17.09.2021, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-57, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Dy. CIT CC -7(40), Mumbai vs. Shree Ambica Gems, Mumbai

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

ITA 1769/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Biren ShahFor Respondent: Pitta Samuel

Section 133ASection 69A

1770/Mum/2022, therefore, applying the same mutatis mutandis, this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. C.Os. 101 & 102/Mum/2022 6. Both the Cross Objection filed by the assesse are not pressed by the assessee, therefore the same stand dismissed. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed ... Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. ITA No. 1969 & 1770/Mum/2022 13 C.O.101 & 102/Mum/2022 DCIT,CC-7(4) Vs. Shree Ambica Gems Order pronounced in the open court on 23.09.2022 (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 23.09.2022 PS: Rohit आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy

DCIT, CC-7(3), Mum, Bai, Mumbai vs. M/S. Nishrin Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6125/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.11 crores made by the Assessing Officer and the assessee has filed a cross objection challenging the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on the ground that the reopening is bad in law and that the assessment order ... Ld.CIT(A) and uphold the order of the Assessing Officer. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Cross Objection No.42/Mum/2021 13. The cross objection filed by the assessee challenges the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act as invalid

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar, Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Mumbai v/s Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar A–301, Gokul Building …………….Respondent New Saibaba Nagar Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067 PAN – ADCPT4546R Cross Objection no.115/Mum./2019 (Arising out of ITA No.697/Mum./2018) (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Shri Kiritbhai K. Thummar A–301, Gokul Building ……………. Cross Objector New Saibaba Nagar (Original Respondent ... No.697/Mum./2018 CO No. 115/Mum./2019 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are against the order dated 17/10/2017, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner

DCIT Cir 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Money Mart Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4256/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)

Aditya Birla Money Mart Limited 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. CO No.12/Mum/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) Assessee Cross Objection 7. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 16 days in filing of these cross objections by the assessee. The reasons ... stated by the assessee are convincing and hence, we are inclined to condone the delay of 16 days and admit the cross objections for adjudication. 8. The only issue to be decided in these cross objections of the assessee is regarding the disallowance of provision made for expenses amounting

ITO WD - 25(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Denish Harilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with the above directions

ITA 3617/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalito, Ward-25(2)(3), C-10, R.No. 504, 5Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. ..... Appellant Vs. Mr. Denish Harilal Shah Flat No. 101, 1St Floor, Paan Villa, Sarojini Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400057 Pan: Awgps3773C ...... Respondent C.O. No. 48/Mum/2020 In Ita No. 3617/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13) Mr. Denish Harilal Shah Flat No. 101, 1St Floor, Paan Villa, Sarojini Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400057 Pan: Awgps3773C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-25(2)(3), C-10, R.No. 504, 5Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Bharat Kumar Respondent/Respondent By : Sh. Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Sh. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 151

48/Mum/2020 Mr. Denish Harilal Shah Date of hearing : 30/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 16/09/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai [hereinafter referred ... aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 2. The assessee in his 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 in case

DCIT - 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Phonographic Performance Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2976/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 33

During appellate proceedings, the Ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that if the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee, then the cross objection would not be pressed. As such, in view of our decision on the Revenue’s appeal, we dismiss the cross objection filed by the assessee ... result, both, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. 11 CO 126/Mum/2019 Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th day September, 2022. sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 12/09/2022 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant

DCIT Cor 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Build Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 1100/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR

Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

ITA nos. 4122 /M/12 & 1100/M/13 Parmar Built Tech; A.Y. 09–10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

ACIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Built Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 4122/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR

Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

ITA nos. 4122 /M/12 & 1100/M/13 Parmar Built Tech; A.Y. 09–10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru vs. M/S.Ozone Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 95/BANG/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ozone Properties The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 38, Ozone Group, Income Tax, Ulsoor Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Ulsoor, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 042. Pan: Aaaco6672M Appellant Respondent & C.O.No. 01/Bang/2022 (In Ita No. 95/Bang/2022) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kodandapani, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 30.11.2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Kodandapani, CA

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

being adjudicated.” 4. Aggrieved by the above view, the revenue has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal and assessee has filed Cross Objection in support. 5. The Ld.AR filed letter dated 23.05.2022 withdrawing the cross objection which is scanned and reproduced as under: Page ... opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

DCIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 439/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cc-2(1) Vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Old Cgo Bldg, 804, Mehta, 8Th Floor, Mk Road, 602-603, Prasad Mumbai – 400020. Chambers,Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 87/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita 439/Mum/2022) (A.Y: 2006-07) Shri Kumar Rasikal Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1) Mehta, Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 8Th 602-603, Prasad Floor, Mk Road, Chambers,Operahouse, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri .Harsh Kapadia.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Tejinder Pal Singh.DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

BENCH: ITA No. 439/Mum/2022 & CO No. 87/Mum/2022 Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai. The appeal is filed by the revenue and cross objection(C.O.) is filed by the assessee against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 48, Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s ... revenue. CO No.87/Mum/2022, A.Y 2006-07. ITA No. 439/Mum/2022 & CO No. 87/Mum/2022 Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai. 10. The assessee has raised the cross objections in respect of validity of the reassessment proceedings and is not pressed. Since the revenue appeal is dismissed the CO raised by the assessee

DCIT Circle- 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1195/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 250

Mumbai v/s M/s. Reliance Corporate I.T. Park Ltd. Building no.4/5, TTC Industrial Area …………….Respondent Thane–Belapur Road, Rabale Navi Mumbai 400 701 PAN – AABCD7169H Cross Objection no.140/Mum./2021 (Arising out of ITA No.1195/Mum./2020) (Assessment Year : 2012–13) M/s. Reliance Corporate I.T. Park Ltd. ....Cross Objector Building no.4/5, TTC Industrial ... Hearing – 02/09/2022 Date of Order – 05/09/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are against the order dated 15/11/2019, passed under section 250 of the M/s. Reliance Corporate I.T. Park Ltd. ITA No.1195/Mum./2020