“cross objection”

Income Tax Officer-3(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patodia Systex Limited, Mumbai

No.21/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 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 the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [hereinafter referred ... when the assessee company had failed to waive the interest either which is very well reflecting in its books of accounts 3. In the Cross-Objection, the Assessee has supported the order passed by the CIT(A) on the following grounds: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding validity

The Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Projects Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal are allowed whereas Cross Objection No

pronouncement of order : 19.07.2022 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 Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟], passed ... that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set-aside and that of the assessing officer be restored.” 3. In the Cross-Objection, the Assessee has supported the order passed by the CIT(A) on the following grounds: “1. Erred in challenging the order

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3697 & 3698/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1989-90 & 1990-91) M/S M. Visvesvarya Dcit(A)-3(2)(1), R. No. 608, 6Th Floor, Industrial Research & Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिधम/ Development Centre Mumbai-400 005 31St Floor, Centre 1, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcm0996K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Ld. Dr अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina & Shri Maneck F. Andhyarujina , Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 22.02.2016, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai For The Ay 1989-90 & 1990-91. 2

Visvesvarya Industrial Research & Development Centre Department had accepted the position throughout. The Department had accepted the position and there was no appeal or cross objection made by Department on the issue of cost of construction which has reached finality. 16. Ld. CIT(A) has captured all these facts ... I.T.A. No. 3697 & 3698/Mum/2016 M/s M. Visvesvarya Industrial Research & Development Centre further pointed out that the department had not filed any cross appeal/ cross objection before the Hon'ble High Court. Thus the question of cost of construction was not an issue and hence in the order giving effect

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

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

Date of hearing: 17.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These are three appeals and one cross objection pertaining to one assessee for two assessment years i.e. AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 involving common issue, therefore; same is disposed ... against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [ the ld CIT (A) ] dated 18th September, 2019. Assessee has filed cross objection no. 62/Mum/2021. 03. The learned Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

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

Date of hearing: 17.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These are three appeals and one cross objection pertaining to one assessee for two assessment years i.e. AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 involving common issue, therefore; same is disposed ... against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [ the ld CIT (A) ] dated 18th September, 2019. Assessee has filed cross objection no. 62/Mum/2021. 03. The learned Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

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

Date of hearing: 17.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These are three appeals and one cross objection pertaining to one assessee for two assessment years i.e. AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 involving common issue, therefore; same is disposed ... against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [ the ld CIT (A) ] dated 18th September, 2019. Assessee has filed cross objection no. 62/Mum/2021. 03. The learned Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances

ITO 15(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Schoeller Technologies India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and Cross Objection of the assessee, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Schoeller Technologies The Income Tax Officer, India Pvt. Limited. Ward 15(3)(3) C-96, Ttc Industrial Area, Room No.452, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 705 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aahcs1326B

2407/Mum/2019 & CO. 02/Mum/2021 M/s Schoeller Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 15-16 Schoeller Technologies India Pvt. Ltd (assessee), who has also filed cross objection. 02. In ITA No.2407/Mum/2019, the appeal is filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(3)(3), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) raising following grounds ... applicant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds or add new ground, which may be necessary." 03. The assessee filed Cross Objection no. 02/Mum/2021 raising following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT Appeals erred in adding Rs. 24,12,250/- by confirming the addition without considering that the expenditure

Indian Institution of Banking and Finance (Formerly Known As the India Institute of Bankers), Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhindian Institute Of Vs. Commissioner Of Income Banking & Finance Tax (Exemptions) (Formerly Known As The Indian Room No. 617, Piramal Institute Of Bankers) Chambers Lalbaug, Tower-I, Kohinoor City Mumbai - 400012 Commercial-Ii, 3Rd Floor, Kirol Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaatt3309D Appellant .. Respondent

order of the Tribunal oiled supra in assessee's own case, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 6. Coming to the Cross Objection by the assessee, it is stated that the CIT(Appeals) erred in not deciding the additional grounds of appeal raised before him. The first objection ... question of levy of interest u/s 234B does not arise since the assessee is held to be entitled for exemption. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed.” ITA No.6954/Mum/2019 A.Y.2004-05 9 Indian Institute of Banking & Finance Vs. CIT(Exemptions) (iii) ITAT, Mumbai vide ITA No. 586/Mum/2022

DCIT- CC- 2(4), Mumbai vs. Shruti Art Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA No.2647/Mum/2016 2007-08

above, the Revenue is in appeal before us against the deletion of disallowance of commission expenses, travelling expenses and depreciation. The assessee has preferred cross objections before us on the legal issue of challenging the validity of search assessment that the same has not been framed in accordance with ... also M/s. Shruti Art Pvt. Ltd., challenging the addition made on account of bogus purchases. The assessee has also preferred cross objections on the ground that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was not served on the assessee. The assessee has further raised yet another ground for disallowance of interest

DCIT -Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Shruti Art Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA No.2647/Mum/2016 2007-08

above, the Revenue is in appeal before us against the deletion of disallowance of commission expenses, travelling expenses and depreciation. The assessee has preferred cross objections before us on the legal issue of challenging the validity of search assessment that the same has not been framed in accordance with ... also M/s. Shruti Art Pvt. Ltd., challenging the addition made on account of bogus purchases. The assessee has also preferred cross objections on the ground that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was not served on the assessee. The assessee has further raised yet another ground for disallowance of interest

ITO 24 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Omprakash N. Pariani (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-24(3)(1), Shri Omprakash N. Pariani (Huf) Mumbai. Vs. 1101, Samarth Prasad, Swami Samarth Nagar, Lokhandwala Circle, Andheri (East), Mumbai. Pan No.Aaah 06552R Appellant Respondent C.O. No.146/Mum/2019 (In 2960/Mum/2018) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia, Ca Revenue By : Shri R A Dhyani (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2022. O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

Date of Hearing : 16.06.2022. Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2022. O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, A.M. This appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are arising against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai for the Assessment Year 2013-14 passed

DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Archive Realty Developers Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit, Central Circle – 5(1) V. M/S. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor 324, Master Mind-Iv, Royal Palms Air India Building Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Nariman Point Mumbai - 400065 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aagca5488D (Appellant) (Respondent)

180/Mum/2018 M/s. Archive Realty Developers Ltd., O R D E R 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 (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated ... assessee’s case under the head income from other sources. 9. Aggrieved revenue is in appeal before us and also assessee filed cross objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue. However, at the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee insisted that assessee has raised jurisdictional issue

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the These appeals by the Revenue and the assessee and the cross and the assessee and the cross- objection by the assessee are directed against two separate orders objection by the assessee are directed against two separate orders objection by the assessee are directed ... dispute involved is common in both the the issue in dispute involved is common in both the assessment years, therefore these appeals and cross objection , therefore these appeals and cross objections have , therefore these appeals and cross objection Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & been heard together and disposed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

PRAKASH KANT, AM These appeals by the These appeals by the Revenue and the assessee and the cross and the assessee and the cross- objection by the assessee are directed against two separate orders objection by the assessee are directed against two separate orders objection by the assessee are directed ... dispute involved is common in both the the issue in dispute involved is common in both the assessment years, therefore these appeals and cross objection , therefore these appeals and cross objections have , therefore these appeals and cross objection Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & been heard together and disposed