← 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

ITO Ward - 1(1), Kalyan vs. Shri Kantilal Kachara Gada, Bhiwandi

ITA 2016/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 O/O Income Tax Officer, Shri Kantilal Kachara Ward – 1(1), Gada, 1St Floor, Flat No.A-202, Mohan Plaza, H. No.1164, Wayale Nagar, Vs. Green Acre Society, Kalyan West-421 301 Behind Oshwal Sagar Hall, Anjurphata, Bhiwandi - 421302 Pan: Ackps4697P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur J. Gosrani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R
Section 143Section 147

No.2016/M/2020 & CO No.147/M/2021 Shri Kantilal Kachara Gada O R D E R Per Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee bearing common question of law and facts challenging the common order dated 08.09.2020 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... Ward No.1(1), Kalyan (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) and the assessee Shri Kantilal Kachara Gada by filing the present appeal and cross objections sought to set aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds inter alia that: “1. On the facts

ACIT-24(3), Mumbai vs. Mohd, Nisar Yunus Sheikh, Mumbai

ITA 4125/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwer Kataram, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur, D.R
Section 148

Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeals filed by the appellant ACIT 24(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’) and cross objections filed by the objector Mohd. Nisar Yunus Sheikh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) bearing common question of law and facts are being disposed ... composite order for the sake of brevity. 2. The Revenue and the assessee by filing present appeals and cross objections sought to set aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2018 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] on the grounds inter alia that

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in relation to AY 2014-2015. C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 is cross objection filed by the Assessee in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. Before we set out the various grounds of appeal raised

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in relation to AY 2014-2015. C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 is cross objection filed by the Assessee in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. Before we set out the various grounds of appeal raised

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in relation to AY 2014-2015. C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 is cross objection filed by the Assessee in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. Before we set out the various grounds of appeal raised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Sharp Software Development India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2358/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sri. Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Date of Hearing : 22.02.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the Revenue and cross objection preferred by the assessee are directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 27.08.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2011-2012. 2. The brief facts ... would stand deleted. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal and the assessee has filed the cross objection. We shall first adjudicate the Revenue’s appeal. IT(TP)A No.2358/Bang/2019 (Revenue’s appeal) 6. The grounds raised read as follows

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. D A Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Assessing Officer and CO of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1971/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Da Jhaveri, Income Tax-19(1), C Tower, C.C 5073, Bharat 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafd0295J Co No. 120/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1971/Mum/2017 For Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Da Jhaveri, Income Tax-19(1), C Tower, C.C 5073, Bharat 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Diamond Bourse, Bandra (E), Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty, DR
Section 271GSection 91CSection 92Section 920Section 92C(1)

above ground grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be resorted.” 03. Assessee has also filed a cross objection raising which challenges applicability of transfer pricing provisions and supports the order of the ld CIT (A). 04. The Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee ... Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals). 08. The learned Authorised Representative further stated that if the order of the learned CIT (A) is upheld, the cross objection of the assessee become infructuous. 09. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly, the assessee

DCIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6862/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

Food and Inns Ltd., O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue and cross objections are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–4, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated ... 135/MUM/2021 M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., to the appeals for the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 also. We order accordingly. 19. Coming to cross objections filed by the assessee, assessee has filed following grounds of appeal and additional grounds: - “Ground of Cross Appeal 1. On the facts

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6860/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

Food and Inns Ltd., O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue and cross objections are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–4, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated ... 135/MUM/2021 M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., to the appeals for the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 also. We order accordingly. 19. Coming to cross objections filed by the assessee, assessee has filed following grounds of appeal and additional grounds: - “Ground of Cross Appeal 1. On the facts

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6859/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

Food and Inns Ltd., O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue and cross objections are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–4, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated ... 135/MUM/2021 M/s. Food and Inns Ltd., to the appeals for the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 also. We order accordingly. 19. Coming to cross objections filed by the assessee, assessee has filed following grounds of appeal and additional grounds: - “Ground of Cross Appeal 1. On the facts

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Mangalore vs. M/S T V Aleyas Enginers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

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

ITA 1361/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. B.R.Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Vandana Sagar, CIT-DR
Section 268A

Date of Hearing : 17.02.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the Revenue and cross objection preferred by the assessee are directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 29.03.2017. The relevant assessment year is 2011-2012. 2. At the very outset ... No.17/2019 dated 08th August, 2019, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 4. Since we have disposed of the appeal of the Revenue, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and the same is dismissed as such. M/s.T V Aleyas Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 5. In the result

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Acme Computers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee in CO No

ITA 1732/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153A(1)Section 153BSection 153CSection 68

Date of Hearing : 21.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The above captioned appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A), 1, New Delhi dated 14.01.2011 pertaining to Assessment Year ... erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of loss of Rs. 49,338/- made by the Assessing Officer.” 3. The cross objections of the assessee read as under: “That the assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) is bad in law and required to be quashed. a) because

Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1588/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishna, CA
Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 153B

restrict the disallowance under 14A of the Act to Rs.15 lakhs. 9. The Ld. A.R. submitted that he will not press cross objection, if disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is made on a reasonable figure. However, we notice that the cross objection filed by the assessee is delayed ... more than a year. We notice that the assessee has not filed any petition for condoning the delay. Hence, the cross objection filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed in limine. Accordingly, we decline to admit the cross objection filed by the assessee. 9.1 Further in assessment year

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9158/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

raised by the Revenue are rejected. As we have sustained the order of the Ld.CIT(A) 9. the contention of the assessee in the cross objections that there should not have been any addition is rejected and the grounds raised in the cross objection are dismissed. In the result, appeals

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9157/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

raised by the Revenue are rejected. As we have sustained the order of the Ld.CIT(A) 9. the contention of the assessee in the cross objections that there should not have been any addition is rejected and the grounds raised in the cross objection are dismissed. In the result, appeals

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9156/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

raised by the Revenue are rejected. As we have sustained the order of the Ld.CIT(A) 9. the contention of the assessee in the cross objections that there should not have been any addition is rejected and the grounds raised in the cross objection are dismissed. In the result, appeals

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9155/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

raised by the Revenue are rejected. As we have sustained the order of the Ld.CIT(A) 9. the contention of the assessee in the cross objections that there should not have been any addition is rejected and the grounds raised in the cross objection are dismissed. In the result, appeals

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9154/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

raised by the Revenue are rejected. As we have sustained the order of the Ld.CIT(A) 9. the contention of the assessee in the cross objections that there should not have been any addition is rejected and the grounds raised in the cross objection are dismissed. In the result, appeals

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9153/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

raised by the Revenue are rejected. As we have sustained the order of the Ld.CIT(A) 9. the contention of the assessee in the cross objections that there should not have been any addition is rejected and the grounds raised in the cross objection are dismissed. In the result, appeals

DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi vs. Kohler India Corporation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, t h e CO filed by the Assessee is stand dismissed

ITA 7811/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 92C

Date of Hearing 03.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 09.02.2022 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the order dated 23/07/2019 passed by CIT(A)- 44, New Delhi for Assessment Year