“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

M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 66/AHD/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

Metrochem Industries Ltd., assessee are directed against different orders passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Being, common issues involved in these appeals and cross objections, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. We are taking ... these appeals and cross objection for adjudication in order of assessment year. 2. The assessment year 1998-99 being the oldest assessment year available before us, firstly we have taken appeal having ITA No. 2594/Ahd/2008 for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised in the appeal by the assessee are reproduced

M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wrd-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 764/AHD/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2001-02

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

The ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 1190/AHD/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2001-02

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

Aarti Industrial Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3695/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., Room No. 470, 4Th Floor 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 145/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita.No. 3583/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)] M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., V. Dcit – 15(1)(1) 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Shailaja Rai & Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80

Tribunal in A.Y. 2011-12 is respectfully followed, accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Since, we dismissed the revenue appeal, the cross objection filed by the assessee also dismissed. 19 ITA No. 3583, 3695/MUM/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) M/s. Arti Industries Ltd., 33. It is observed by us that

I.T.O. - 25(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Triumphant Properties LLP, Mumbai

ITA 97/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Ito 25(1)(5) Vs. M/S Triumphant C-10, 406, 4Th Floor, Bkc Properties Llp, 710, Complex, Meadows, Sahara Plaza, Mumbai – 400051 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagft0727R Respondent = .. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Karan Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(3)

1 ITA No. 97/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 The ITO 25(1)(5) Vs. M/s Triumphant Properties LLP IN THE INCOME

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trust Circle- 3(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Baldwin Boys High School, Bangalore

ITA 606/BANG/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 10(22)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 253Section 253(4)

that the assessee cannot be permitted to take away the benefit that accrued in favour of Revenue, except by way of an appeal or cross objections. He submits that an order adverse to the interest of revenue, by recourse to Rule 27 is impermissible as held in the aforesaid judgment ... under: "17. Taking up the second issue first, the Tribunal has committed an error in law in holding that the assessee having not filed cross-objection against findings adverse to the assessee in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the said findings had become final and remained unchallenged. The Tribunal apparently

DCIT 6 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kilitch Healthcare India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is held to be infructuous

ITA 7061/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

Date of Hearing 25.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.03.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee arise out of the order of learned CIT(A) dated 20.8.2019 for A.Y. 2015-16. Revenu’s appeal : 2. Grounds of appeal ... learned CIT(A) in this regard. Hence, we uphold the same. 36. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Assessee’s cross objection : 37. Grounds of appeal raised in cross objection are as under : “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed whereas the Cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1533/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Chintamani V. Dingankar, Sr. DR

Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

against the order dated 26.12.2018 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16. The Cross-objection was filed by the Revenue on 19.02.2021 with the approval from the office of Pr. CIT-5, Mumbai thereby stating that cross-objection needs ... account of non-deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the cross-objection should be allowed and the delay should be condoned as during the proceedings, the Revenue has rectified its original order and corrected the mistake of giving proper section

Cox & Kings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1716/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., Income Tax Officer- Turner Morrison Building, 1(1)(1), 534/579, 5Th Floor, 16 Bank Street, Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhawan, Pan: Aaacc1921B M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., 1(1)(1), Turner Morrison Building, 534/579, 5Th Floor, Vs. 16 Bank Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacc1921B Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, D.R

Section 92B

debiting the expenses in Share Premium account instead of passing through Profit & Loss Account amounts to capital or revenue expenditure." CO No.30/M/2016 (Assessee’s cross objection) “1. erred in objecting the direction of Hon'ble DRP in allowing the expenditure incurred on video shooting expenses of Rs.3

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sofdel Systems P..Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA no

ITA 3618/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 250Section 92C

Circle–3(3)(2), Mumbai v/s Softdel Systems Pvt. Ltd. 86, Jolly Maker Chamber–II ……………. Respondent 225, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAECS0576Q Cross Objection no.290/Mum./2017 (Arising out of ITA No. 1838/Mum./2016) (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Softdel Systems Pvt. Ltd. 86, Jolly Maker Chamber–II ….………. Cross Objector ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“the CIT(A)”). While the appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 are against the final assessment order dated 29.01.2016, passed under section 143(3) read with section

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

gone through orders of the authorities below along with case laws cited by both parties. The limited issue came up for our consideration from cross objection filed by the assesee is whether, sales tax subsidy being capital in nature shall be reduced from book profit computed u/s 115JB

ITO, Ward-4(4), Thane vs. Shri Himanshu Praveen Jain, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 418/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaito,Ward-4(4) Hemanshu Praveen Jain Room No.08, 6Th Floor Prop.Of M/S. Pharma Technologies A-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate G5 & G6, Shah& Desai Industrial Vs. Thane(W)-400 604 Estate No.2, Navghar, Vasai(E)-401 210

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri T.Sankar, Sr.AR

Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (A.M): This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated ... total addition of Rs. 13,58,313/- made on 2 Himanshu Praveen Jain account of bogus purchases. In the cross objection, it has been submitted that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,39,578/- being 25% of the alleged non-genuine purchases. 3. Brief facts

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S E- City Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the C

ITA 408/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Revenue is accordingly treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose. C.O. No.100/Bang/2012 Page 20 of 23 C.O. No.100/Bang/2012 22. As far as the Cross Objection is concerned, there is a delay of 74 days in filing the C.O. which has been explained as owning to mistake and belief that

Asst. CIT -Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rakhi Properties & Lesing P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 947/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 2(3)(1) V. M/S. Rakhi Properties & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., 61/62 Gaya Building, 4Th Floor, Y.M. Road Room No. 552, 5Th Floor Masjid Bunder, Mumbai - 400003 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccr8822L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Department by Shri T. Shankar

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

CO.NO.149/MUM/2021 M/s. Rakhi Properties and Leasing Pvt. 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 the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–48, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT ... dated 06.07.2020 for the A.Y. 2007-08. 2. Assessee has filed the cross objection raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A), having held that the assessee had proved the identity, credit- worthiness and genuineness of share capital/premium

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5738/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5738/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit बिधम/ Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. 5Th Floor, Room No.506, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. L-61, Midc Industrial Area, Taloja, Raigad, Maharashtra- Road, Mumbai-400020. 410208. & Cross Objection No.41/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5738/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-6(3)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No.506, Ltd. Vs. L-61, Midc Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Taloja, Raigad, Maharashtra- Road, Mumbai-400020. 410208. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj5175G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 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 21.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.41/Mum/2021 A.Y.2010-11 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40

Polymertech Pvt. 5th Floor, Room No.506, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. L-61, MIDC Industrial Area, Taloja, Raigad, Maharashtra- Road, Mumbai-400020. 410208. & Cross Objection No.41/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5738/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. बिधम/ ACIT-6(3)(1) 5th Floor, Room ... AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The Revenue as well as assessee have filed the above mentioned appeal as well as cross-objection against the order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.41/Mum/2021 A.Y.2010-11

DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Diesel Fashion India Reliance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly it is to be dismissed as such

ITA 2931/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)

order : March 04, 2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. These cross appeals filed by the parties, and the cross objections filed by the assessee, are directed against the order dated 3rd August 2018 passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under ... while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 28. We will now take up the assessment year 2013-14. 29 By way of this appeal

DCIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nomura Structured Finance Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1711/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Smt. Vatsalya Jha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Mumbai v/s M/s. Nomura Structured Finance Services Private Limited, 9th Floor, Nomura ……………. Respondent Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Mumbai 400 076 PAN – AABCL4233E Cross Objection no.69 Arising out of ITA No. 1711/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) M/s. Nomura Structured Finance Services Private Limited, 9th Floor, Nomura ……………. Cross Objector Hiranandani Business ... 1711/Mum./2015 and C.O. No. 69/Mum./2015 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are against the final assessment order dated 29.01.2015, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Pmc Sierra India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objection of assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1139/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1139/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Micro Semi Storage Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Pmc-Sierra India Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd.) Circle – 4(1)(1), 19, Church Street, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aadcp6802F Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 84/Bang/2017 (In It(Tp)A No. 1139/Bang/2016) (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit & Revenue By Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2013 By The Ld.Dcit

Section 143(3)Section 92C

claim u/s. 10A in favour of assessee. On receipt of notice of the above Revenue's appeal, assessee also filed the cross-objections seeking inclusion of certain comparables. Before we undertake the comparability analysis, it is sine qua non to understand the FAR performed by the assessee under ... view, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly this ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Cross Objection by Assessee: The Ld.AR submitted that Grounds 3-5 are only pressed by the assessee. Accordingly the remaining Grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Red Hat India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1379/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144B

assessee viz. the Mumbai Tribunal in case of DCIT v. Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 4540, 4541, 5029, 5008 & 5009/M/2008 and Cross objections 214/M/2008, 47, 20, 44 & 45/M/2009, the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Novo Nordisk India Private Limited vs. DCIT, Circle 47 M/s. Red Hat India Private

ACIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ms Jayanti K Punjabi, Mumbai

ITA 463/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty, D.R

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 292

Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Aforesaid appeal filed by the appellant ACIT- 13(3)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’) and cross objections filed by the objector Ms. Jayanti K. Punjabi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) are being disposed of by way of composite order in order ... avoid repetition of discussion. 2. The Revenue and the assessee by filing present appeal and cross objections sought to set aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] on the grounds inter alia that:- “1. On the facts