“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

Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee and CO’s filed by the revenue are treated as dismissed

ITA 184/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 184/Mum/2017 & Cross Objection No. 22/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4781/Mum/2018 & Cross Objection No. 116/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Amol Mahajan, LdFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld

Section 143(3)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 184/Mum/2017 & Cross Objection No. 22/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) And आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4781/Mum/2018 & Cross Objection No. 116/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Four Seasons Hotels & DCIT- (IT) Range ... 184/Mum/2017&4781/Mum/2018 CO No. 22/Mum/2021 & 116/Mum/2021 Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Per Bench: The aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee and cross objections filed by the revenue against the order dated 30.09.2016 for AY 2012-13; and order dated 25.05.18 for AY 2013-14 passed

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, grounds 20 to 23 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 40

exercise of determination of arm's length price in the light of the above decisions of the Tribunal. The grounds raised in this cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes.” Following the earlier orders of this Tribunal, we set aside this issue to the record of the A.O./TPO with

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkuar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2481/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2481/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala for Shri Tanzil Pdvekar

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

contra, the ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in Cross Objection of the assessee i.e. C.O No.178/Mum/2018 arising out of ITA No.4174/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 28/02/2019 has held reopening

ACIT -17 (1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2479/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2479/मुं/2021("न.व.2009-10) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala for Shri Tanzil Pdvekar

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

contra, ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in Cross Objection of the assessee i.e. C.O No.176/Mum/2018 arising out of ITA No.4172/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 28/02/2019 has held reopening of assessment

ACIT- 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2480/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2480/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of 2 Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Tanzil Pdvekar

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Tanzil Pdvekar appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in Cross Objection of the assessee i.e. C.O No.177/Mum/2018 arising out of ITA No.4173/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 28/02/2019 has held reopening

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Om Reality P. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 497/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Jt. Commissioner Of M/S. Om Realty Private Income Tax (Osd), Limited, Cen. Circle-3(1), 205, Om Chambers, Room No.1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Om Kroner, Air India Building, 123, A.K. Marg, Nariman Point, Kempscorner, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 036 Pan: Aaaco2564L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

No.150/M/2021 M/s. Om Realty Private Limited O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: For the sake of brevity aforesaid appeal and cross objections bearing common question of law and facts are being disposed of by way of composite order. 2. Appellant Jt. Commissioner of Income ... Revenue) and the cross objector M/s. Om Realty Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) by filing the present appeal and cross objections sought to set aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred

ITO - 1(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Film Waves Combines P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 170/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-1(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Film Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ Ito-1(1)(3) Room No.531A, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf2525Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) Assessee By: Shri P.P. Bhandari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri P.P. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 274

Waves Combines Room No.531A, 5th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 7th Floor, Mehta Mahal, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Opera House, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400004. & Cross Objection No.10/Mum/2022 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 170/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Film Waves Combines बिधम/ ITO-1(1)(3) Room No.531A ... AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The Revenue as well as assessee have filed the above mentioned appeal as well as cross-objection against the order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [hereinafter C.O. No.10/Mum/2022 A.Y.2010-11 referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2010-11

ITO-15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2595/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4), M/S Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 601/602, Delta, Central Avenue, Road, Marine Lines, Vs. Technology Street, Hiranandani Mumbai-400020. Garden Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aaacp 4621 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. C.T. Mathews, DR

Section 114Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 2595/M/2019 & CO No. 103/M/2021 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 04/01/2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [in short ... system data. M/s Pravir Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 2595/M/2019 & CO No. 103/M/2021 3. The Grounds raised by the assessee in cross objection are reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 147 & 148 of the Income

DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bayer Bioscience P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As Proagro Seed Co. Ltd), New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 6342/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, (Formerly Known As Proagro Seed Central Circle 10(3), Co. Ltd.,) 451, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Vs. Bayer House, Central Avenue M.K. Marg, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3459M

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT

Section 143(3)

three deductions in favour of the assessee and therefore, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 05. The assessee has also filed cross objection, which is merely supporting the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). 06. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned Assessing ... Ground number 4 was not pressed and therefore it is dismissed. 012. Accordingly, appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 013. As cross objections filed by assessee are merely supportive in nature, no arguments were advanced and therefore those are dismissed. 014. Accordingly appeal of the learned assessing officer

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

For Appellant: Mr.Rahul Hakani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.DR

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

72/Mum/2021 Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd. Mumbai, passed u/s 143(3) and 250 of the Act and the assessee has filed the cross objections. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the cross objections (C.O.) before ... limitation. Contra, the Ld.DR has no specific objections. We found the facts mentioned are reasonable and accordingly condone the delay and admit the Cross objections. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case

Sagar Damoh Toll Roads Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3147/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesagar Damoh Toll Vs. Acit, Circle – 8(1)(2) Roads Ltd Room No. 651, 6Th 513A, 5Th Floor, Floor, Aayakar Kohinoor City, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Off Lbs Marg, Mumbai – 400020. Kurla, Mumbai – 400070 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce2160Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. K. Shivaram.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay K. Shrivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Passed 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. K. Shivaram.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay K. Shrivastava.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)

84/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 12. 12 As we have dismissed the appeal of the revenue, therefore, finding no reason to advert the cross objections filed by the assessee, which are admittedly stated by the Sagar Damoh Toll Roads Ltd, Mumbai. ld. A.R to be supportive in nature, we dismiss ... same as having been rendered as academic in nature. 13. The Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 14. The appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee, are both dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITO, Ward-3(4), Thane vs. M/S Vishwakarma & Company, Thane

ITA 4562/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Vishwakarma & Ward-3(4), Thane, Company, Plot No. C-8, Room No. 09, 6Th Floor, Road No. 15, Wagle B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Industrial Estate, Near Estate, Thane (W) Esic Hospital Thane (W) 400604 400604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefv2923K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 271(1)(c)

1 ITA No.4562/Mum/2019 A.Y.2010-11 ITO, Ward-3(4) Vs.M/s Vishwakarma & Company IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

DCIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajenderkumar Miglani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2925/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2925/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-5(4) बिधम/ Rajindrakumar Miglani Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Uttam House, 69, P „Dmello Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Road, Carnac Bunder, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400009. & Cross Objection No.20/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2925/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rajindrakumar Miglani बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(4) Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Uttam House, 69, P „Dmello Vs. Road, Carnac Bunder, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400009. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm7288D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyp (Dr) Assessee By: Shri K Shivaram & Rahul Hakani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 25.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.20/Mum2021 A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K Shivaram & Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyp (DR)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Rajindrakumar Miglani Room No.1927, 19th Floor, Uttam House, 69, P „Dmello Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Road, Carnac Bunder, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400009. & Cross Objection No.20/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2925/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rajindrakumar Miglani बिधम/ DCIT, Central Circle-5(4) Room No.1927, 19th ... AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The Revenue as well as assessee have filed the above mentioned appeal as well as cross-objection against the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.20/Mum2021 A.Y.2010-11

ITO 5(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Malabar Hills Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3592/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 5(2)(3) V. M/S. Malabar Hill Club Limited Room No. 566, 5Th Floor B.G. Kher Marg, Malabar Hill Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacw3868M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niraj D. Sheth & Shri Vishal Asrani Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D. Sheth and Shri Vishal AsraniFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(3)

call for any interference. Thus, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are hereby dismissed.” 19 M/s. Malabar Hill Club Limited We find that in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the decision from