← 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

Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 25(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3773/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

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

Dy CIT - 8 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tanish Homes & Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 113/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 68

No.113/Mum/2021 & CO No.144/Mum/2021 M/s. Tanish Homes & Construction P. Ltd., आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.113/Mum/2021 & Cross Objection in CO No.144/Mum/2021 for A.Y.2011-12 arise out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2581/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

which was merged with Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 17G, Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. PAN NO. AAECM7826P Cross Objection Nos. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 Arising out of I.T.A. Nos.2580 & 2581/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Kesarinandan Township बिधम/ DCIT, CC-7(3) Pvt. Ltd. Room ... ratio as aforesaid mutatis and mutandis apply to other three (3) appeals of the revenue, so they also stands dismissed. 10. Coming to the Cross objection of the 275 & 276/Mum/2018 (ITA. Nos. 2580 & 2581/Mum/2017). These are cross objection preferred by assessee against the order

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Kesarinandan Township P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 2580/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

which was merged with Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 17G, Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. PAN NO. AAECM7826P Cross Objection Nos. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 Arising out of I.T.A. Nos.2580 & 2581/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Kesarinandan Township बिधम/ DCIT, CC-7(3) Pvt. Ltd. Room ... ratio as aforesaid mutatis and mutandis apply to other three (3) appeals of the revenue, so they also stands dismissed. 10. Coming to the Cross objection of the 275 & 276/Mum/2018 (ITA. Nos. 2580 & 2581/Mum/2017). These are cross objection preferred by assessee against the order

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1483/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

which was merged with Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 17G, Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. PAN NO. AAECM7826P Cross Objection Nos. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 Arising out of I.T.A. Nos.2580 & 2581/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Kesarinandan Township बिधम/ DCIT, CC-7(3) Pvt. Ltd. Room ... ratio as aforesaid mutatis and mutandis apply to other three (3) appeals of the revenue, so they also stands dismissed. 10. Coming to the Cross objection of the 275 & 276/Mum/2018 (ITA. Nos. 2580 & 2581/Mum/2017). These are cross objection preferred by assessee against the order

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1482/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

which was merged with Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 17G, Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. PAN NO. AAECM7826P Cross Objection Nos. 275 & 276/Mum/2018 Arising out of I.T.A. Nos.2580 & 2581/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Kesarinandan Township बिधम/ DCIT, CC-7(3) Pvt. Ltd. Room ... ratio as aforesaid mutatis and mutandis apply to other three (3) appeals of the revenue, so they also stands dismissed. 10. Coming to the Cross objection of the 275 & 276/Mum/2018 (ITA. Nos. 2580 & 2581/Mum/2017). These are cross objection preferred by assessee against the order

Juridictional ITO - 31(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Elphistone Paper Box Manufacturing Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 445/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jurisdictional Income-Tax Officer- M/S Elphinstone Paper Box 31(1)(1), Manufacturing Co. Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs. S/10 Ram Mandir Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Goregaon (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400104. ‘G’ Block, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafe 0509 Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 18/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 445/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Co No. 17/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 444/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2008-09 &

Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/06/2022 ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders passed by the are directed against separate orders passed ... party namely made from one of the party namely “M/s Bigwin Paper Distributor Paper Distributor Private Limited” as bogus. as bogus. 3. In the cross-objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised

Juridictional ITO - 31(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Elphistone Paper Box Manufacturing Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 444/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jurisdictional Income-Tax Officer- M/S Elphinstone Paper Box 31(1)(1), Manufacturing Co. Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs. S/10 Ram Mandir Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Goregaon (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400104. ‘G’ Block, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafe 0509 Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 18/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 445/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Co No. 17/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 444/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2008-09 &

Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/06/2022 ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders passed by the are directed against separate orders passed ... party namely made from one of the party namely “M/s Bigwin Paper Distributor Paper Distributor Private Limited” as bogus. as bogus. 3. In the cross-objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised

Jurisdictional ITO - 31(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Elphistone Paper Box Manufaturing Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 443/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jurisdictional Income-Tax Officer- M/S Elphinstone Paper Box 31(1)(1), Manufacturing Co. Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs. S/10 Ram Mandir Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Goregaon (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400104. ‘G’ Block, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafe 0509 Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 18/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 445/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Co No. 17/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 444/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2008-09 &

Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/06/2022 ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders passed by the are directed against separate orders passed ... party namely made from one of the party namely “M/s Bigwin Paper Distributor Paper Distributor Private Limited” as bogus. as bogus. 3. In the cross-objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised

Jurisdictional ITO - 31(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Elphistone Paper Box Manufaturing Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 442/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jurisdictional Income-Tax Officer- M/S Elphinstone Paper Box 31(1)(1), Manufacturing Co. Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs. S/10 Ram Mandir Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Goregaon (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400104. ‘G’ Block, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafe 0509 Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 18/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 445/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Co No. 17/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 444/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2008-09 &

Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/06/2022 ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders passed by the are directed against separate orders passed ... party namely made from one of the party namely “M/s Bigwin Paper Distributor Paper Distributor Private Limited” as bogus. as bogus. 3. In the cross-objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised

Jurisdictional ITO - 31(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Elphinstone Paper Box Manufacturing Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 441/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jurisdictional Income-Tax Officer- M/S Elphinstone Paper Box 31(1)(1), Manufacturing Co. Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs. S/10 Ram Mandir Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Goregaon (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400104. ‘G’ Block, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafe 0509 Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 18/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 445/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Co No. 17/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 444/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2008-09 &

Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/06/2022 ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders passed by the are directed against separate orders passed ... party namely made from one of the party namely “M/s Bigwin Paper Distributor Paper Distributor Private Limited” as bogus. as bogus. 3. In the cross-objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised

Jurisdictional ITO - 31 (1)(1), Mumbia vs. Yogendra K. Patel (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 440/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jurisdictional Income-Tax Officer- M/S Elphinstone Paper Box 31(1)(1), Manufacturing Co. Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs. S/10 Ram Mandir Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Goregaon (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400104. ‘G’ Block, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafe 0509 Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 18/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 445/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Co No. 17/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 444/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2008-09 &

Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement : 29/06/2022 ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the These appeals by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders passed by the are directed against separate orders passed ... party namely made from one of the party namely “M/s Bigwin Paper Distributor Paper Distributor Private Limited” as bogus. as bogus. 3. In the cross-objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised one of the issue objection, the assessee has raised

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Archroma India Pvt Ltd., Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai
Section 170Section 2(42)Section 2(42)(C)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 50BSection 5O

value of WDV of assets taken over shall qualify as goodwill, and eligible for consequent depreciation. 27. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal and the cross objection are dismissed and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Since the issue is exactly similar and grounds as well as the facts

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeal/cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7724/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 148

Bagchi Date of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. The appeals and cross objections are filed by the revenue and assessee in the case of M/s. Sandhya Enterprises against common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... case of M/s. Sankeshwar Enterprises, cross appeals are filed by the revenue and assessee; and cross objection is filed by the assessee, against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai dated 12.09.2019 for the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The issue raised by the assessee

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeal/cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7723/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 148

Bagchi Date of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. The appeals and cross objections are filed by the revenue and assessee in the case of M/s. Sandhya Enterprises against common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... case of M/s. Sankeshwar Enterprises, cross appeals are filed by the revenue and assessee; and cross objection is filed by the assessee, against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai dated 12.09.2019 for the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The issue raised by the assessee

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

ITA 3491/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay Kumar. CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., v. DCIT [383 ITR 529]. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the cross objections filed by the assessee it challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to the exempt income. Ld. Counsel ... ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited (supra) and compute the disallowance accordingly. 13. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed. 12. We find that the CIT(A) has relied on the facts, circumstances, provisions of the Act, judicial

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6364/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6364/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, R. No. 642, 6Th Floor, ‘A’ Aidun Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1St Dhobhi Talao, John Crasto Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lane, Mumbai-400 002 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahps3906Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 247/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, बनाम/ Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 14.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2018 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 2

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. AR
Section 2Section 22Section 23(2)

Dhobhi Talao, John Crasto Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lane, Mumbai-400 002 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAHPS3906Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 247/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, बनाम/ DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri ... घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-9, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed

Lokhandwala Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 46, Mumbai

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

ITA 310/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 310/Mum/2014 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Cen. Cir.– 46, M/S Lokhandwala Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Infrastructurepvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 72, Gandhi Nagar, Road, Mumbai-400020 Dainik Shivner Road, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & ShriFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153A

made the disallowance on the ground that payment has been made without deduction of TDS and revenue is not in cross objection, then issue has to be seen qua the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that, assessee was not required to deduct TDS u/s 194C

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6993/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 90

Dates of the hearings : 09/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 27/06/2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. This appeal, as also the cross-objections, call into question the correctness of the order dated 24th September 2012 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s ... statistical purposes. 45. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. 46. We will now take up the cross objections. 47. Turning to the cross-objections filed by the Assessing Officer, learned representatives fairly submit that as the assessee is not pressing the ground

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha
Section 54F

DCIT, CC-5(4) 3 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMERJIT SINGH (AM): All the appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection are based on identical facts and similar issue, therefore, for the sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated together in this order by taking