← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Zen Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 891/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148

Assessment proceedings, Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri had filed an affidavit and retracted from his earlier statement, however, the AO had not provided the cross objection of Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri. It is also a fact noticed from the record that Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri in his statement dated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Zen Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 890/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148

Assessment proceedings, Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri had filed an affidavit and retracted from his earlier statement, however, the AO had not provided the cross objection of Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri. It is also a fact noticed from the record that Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri in his statement dated

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Zen Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 889/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148

Assessment proceedings, Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri had filed an affidavit and retracted from his earlier statement, however, the AO had not provided the cross objection of Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri. It is also a fact noticed from the record that Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri in his statement dated

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Zen Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 888/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148

Assessment proceedings, Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri had filed an affidavit and retracted from his earlier statement, however, the AO had not provided the cross objection of Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri. It is also a fact noticed from the record that Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri in his statement dated

Smt. Santosh Bamalwa, Dibrugarh vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 348/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarsmt. Santosh Bamalwa Acit, Circle-1 C/O A.K. Varma, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mahalaya Road, Dibrugarh- Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh-786003, 786001, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aedpb9900P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Court against the said order. The operative portion of the order of the Coordinate Bench is reproduced as under: “7. As far as the cross-objections are concerned, emphasizing that the issues on merits ought to have been adjudicated on merits, we find that this Tribunal 5 Smt. Santosh Bamalwa ... ACIT has dealt with the cross-objection and allowed the same in favour of the assessee observing as follows:- "45. A perusal of these assessment orders would indicate that in five scrutiny cases of the sale of shares, i.e. TFCIL, gain earned by the assessee was accepted as a genuine

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

1782/HYd/2025 ACIT vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited parties. At the outset, it is noticed that the assessee has not filed any cross appeal or cross objection against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the assessee is entitled to support ... file of AO for recomputing the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of above observations. Thus, revenue's appeal is dismissed and assessee's cross-objection, on the issue in question, stand allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above.” Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

1782/HYd/2025 ACIT vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited parties. At the outset, it is noticed that the assessee has not filed any cross appeal or cross objection against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the assessee is entitled to support ... file of AO for recomputing the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of above observations. Thus, revenue's appeal is dismissed and assessee's cross-objection, on the issue in question, stand allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above.” Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi

The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 44C

External Commercial Borrowings given to Indian customers. 4. Although, it was this issue which was also sought to be addressed by way of a cross objection and the maintainability of which was questioned by the appellant, we find that in order to render a closure to the dispute which ... have disposed of the appeal on the aforesaid terms and in light of the subsequent developments, we leave the question of whether a cross objection would be maintainable in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act open to be considered in an appropriate case." 6. Before

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Sudharshna Arora, New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Income Tax (Appeals)-III, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 03.11.2009 for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The assessee has also filed cross objections in this appeal. 2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and on the circumstances of the case

Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Wardha vs. Padmakar Krushnaji Warbhe, Hinganghat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)

Date of pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by revenue and Cross Objection (C.O.) therein by assessee are directed against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short “CIT(A)"] dated 20.04.2024 for assessment ... Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that assessee. 2. On service of notice of memorandum of appeal of revenue, the assessee filed his Cross Objections raising following grounds, (1) That the order of the learned AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Analog Devices India Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2074/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar & Shri Nirmal MathewFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT (DR)
Section 250

excluding the said company from the final set of comparables. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee on this issue is allowed. 21. The Ld. DR before us submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in excluding ICRA Techno Analytics ... excluding ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. from the final set of comparables. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee on this issue is allowed. 23.4 The Ld. DR before us submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in excluding Persistent Systems

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

claim for the first time in terms of its claim u/s.254, accordingly, we admit the legal issue raised by the assessee in the cross objection and the objections raised by the ld. AR is rejected.” 13.3. Accordingly, in the given set of facts and legal position as discussed above, admission

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

claim for the first time in terms of its claim u/s.254, accordingly, we admit the legal issue raised by the assessee in the cross objection and the objections raised by the ld. AR is rejected.” 13.3. Accordingly, in the given set of facts and legal position as discussed above, admission

DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hydrabad vs. Kalptaru Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1077/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1077/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148

No.1077/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 | The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad - 500 084. Telangana. (Appellant) | Kalptaru Investments Private Limited, HYDERABAD. Telangana. PAN AAACK5589R (Respondent) Cross Objection No.26/Hyd./2025 Arising out of ITA No.1077/Hyd/2025 - Assessment Year 2013-2014 | Kalptaru Investments Private Limited, HYDERABAD. PAN AAACK5589R (Cross Objector) | The DCIT, Circle ... Date of Pronouncement: 11.03.2026 2 ITA.No.1077/Hyd./2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal ITA No.1077/Hyd/2025 by the Revenue and Cross Objection No.26/Hyd./2025 by the Assessee are directed against the Order dated 15.04.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC

Hyderabad Ring Road Project Private Limited, India vs. ACIT, Circle

In the result Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4090/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Chinu Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Hyderabad Ring Road Project Vs ACIT [A.Y. 2017-18] PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The above captioned appeals by the assessee and Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are preferred against the separate orders of the NFAC dated 18.03.2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Since the underlying ... appeals and cross objection were heard together and the facts in issues are identical, all these appeals and cross objections are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity, though the quantum may differ. ITA No. 4090/DEL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) [A.Y. 2017-18] (Assessee

ACIT, Circle - 10(1), Delhi vs. M/S Hyderabad Ring Road Project Private Limited, Delhi

In the result Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3599/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Chinu Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Hyderabad Ring Road Project Vs ACIT [A.Y. 2017-18] PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The above captioned appeals by the assessee and Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are preferred against the separate orders of the NFAC dated 18.03.2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Since the underlying ... appeals and cross objection were heard together and the facts in issues are identical, all these appeals and cross objections are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity, though the quantum may differ. ITA No. 4090/DEL/2025(Assessee’s appeal) [A.Y. 2017-18] (Assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Hemantkumar Rajendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal file by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1371/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Ms Urvashi Shodhan, AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

dated 09.04.2025 relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee ITA No. 1371/Ahd/2025 with C.O No.75/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– has filed Cross Objection No.75/Ahd/2025 against the Revenue’s appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: (a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred ... dismissed. ITA No. 1371/Ahd/2025 with C.O No.75/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 5– C.O No.75/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No.1371/Ahd/2025) for AY 2018-19 8. Since the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is merely in support of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), no separate adjudication is required. Accordingly

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Bp India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4907/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), P B No 19411, Mumbai Vs. Technopolis Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 276/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income P B No 19411, Tax , Circle-1(2)(1), Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mumbai Andheri, Mumbai - 400043 (Pan: Aaccb2030Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan & Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Cas Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), Dated 30/05/2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Acit - 9(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(3)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.04.2015, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Mr. Amol Mahajan and Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of CIT (A) 55, Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1076574916(1), dated 30/05/2025, passed against the assessment order ... Healthcare Business Services Comparable was directed to be included against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.3. Assessee through its cross objection is defending the order of ld. CIT(A) whereby relief has been granted in respect of the two comparables for which Revenue is in appeal before

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West vs. M M Plastoware India Private Limited, Thane

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

ITA 133/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of M M Plastoware India Private Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane Limited Gala No. 10-15, Arihant Darshan, Vs. 90 Feet Road, Bhayander West, Thane – 101101. (Pan: Aahcm2568D) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 120/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M M Plastoware India Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax, Circle-1, Thane Gala No. 10-15, Arihant Darshan, 90 Feet Road, Vs. Bhayander West, Thane – 101101. (Pan: Aahcm2568D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalit Munoyat, Ca Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal:

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Munoyat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 32(1)(ila)

MEMBER: 2 ITA No. 133/Mum/2025 & C.O. No. 120/Mum/2025 M M Plastoware India Pvt. Ltd. AY 2016-17 This appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of ADDL/JCIT (A)-3 Bengaluru, vide order nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070018243(1), dated 29.10.2024, passed against the assessment order ... effect being below the prescribed threshold and thus, is dismissed in limine on the ground of low tax effect. 6.1. In the cross objection, assessee has raised the grounds to allow the claims of depreciation rejected by the ld. Assessing Officer for want of revised return. Before us, assessee

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Date of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 ORDER Per Sandeep Gosain, JM: The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income ... assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since all the issues involved in these appeals and cross objections is common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly, we shall take