“cross objection”

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals as well as cross objection are dismissed as withdrawn – subject to the observation above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6029/Mum/2016 & 5978/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-14(2)(1) बिधम/ Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6024/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit-10(1) G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Room No.432, Aayakar Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. C. O No.30/Mum/2018 Arising Out Of Ita. No. 6029/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit-14(2)(1) 4Th G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, 432, Floor, Aayakar Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1681G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rushabh Barbhaya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/02/2022

01/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The revenue as well as assessee have filed the above mentioned appeals as well as cross-objection against the order dated 06.07.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 22 Mumbai ITA Nos. 6024/M/2016 6029 & 5978/Mum/2016 C.O. No.30/M/2018 A.Ys ... also did not object to course so suggested. 4. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeals as well as cross- objection as withdrawn, subject to be rider that in the unlikely event of matter not being resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee shall have liberty

DCIT 1 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

quashing the re-assessment proceedings. The ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 3.5. Since the entire re-assessment has been quashed herein, the cross objections preferred by the assessee raising grounds on merits are left open as they become academic in nature and hence, dismissed as infructuous ... result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in open Court on 31/01/2022. (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 31/01/2022 KARUNA, sr.ps 9 ITA No.14/Mum/2020 & CO No.75/Mum/2021 M/s. HDFC Egro General Insurance Company Copy of the Order forwarded

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Fiat India P.Ltd ( Now Known As New Holland Flat India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain ( & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Date of pronouncement 31-01-2021 2 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 O R D E R Per Bench : This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 03/10/2011 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [in short ... opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify/examine the said evidences as per the provisions of IT Rule 46A(2) and 46A(3)?” 4. The cross objection filed by the assessee along with form No. 36A on 19/12/2012 are reproduced under: 1. As regards Ground No. 2 of the Learned Assessing

DCIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Corporate Resources Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Hearing 17.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: Since the appeal of the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are based on similar facts and identical issue directed against 2 ITA No.4145/Mum/2019 & C.O No.120/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 The DCIT ... disallowance made by the A.O. is ^arbitrary, excessive and not in accordance with the law.” 5. There was a delay in filing cross objection by 17 days and assessee has filed application along with affidavit for condonation of delay. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the affidavit filed

ITO 28 (3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vasant Purshottam Thakkar, Mumbai

Accordingly the cross objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

fact that assessee failed to furnish copy of purchase agreement in respect of said property at Village Kanjur, Bhandup, Kurla". 03 Assessee filed a cross objection in CO number 12/MUM/2021 raising following grounds wherein challenge was made to reopening of the assessment:- Reopening of assessment ... order of the learned CIT – A with respect to the dismissal of the ground relating to reopening of the assessment and therefore the cross objection is filed. 12. As the cross objection filed by assessee is on jurisdictional issue, the learned authorised representative referred to the paper book filed containing

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Lalitpur Power Generation Company, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: 2 ITA No.3566/M/2019 & CO No.64/M/2020 M/s. Lalitpur Power Generation Company Aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are being disposed of by way of composite order in order to avoid the repetition of discussion. 2. Appellant ACIT ... Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) and cross objector (M/s. Lalitpur Power Generation Company Limited) by filing present appeal and cross objections sought to set aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2019 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] on the grounds inter

Shoreline Hotel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

fact on record that aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) was also upheld by the Tribunal while deciding appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee. It is a fact on record that based on addition sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the AO has imposed penalty under

Varad Vinayak Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (3)-2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Appellant Vs. M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Respondent C.O. No. 50/Mum/2019 In Ita No.5279/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv7419A ............ Appellant Vs. Ito, 11-3(2), Room No. 428, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

objections raised by the Appellant, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. In the present case the assessee has filed the Cross objection on 5.2.2019 and in the cross objection the assessee had raised the following plea 5 ITA No. 5279 Mum 2017 with ... grounds stated hereinabove and the assessee is in cross appealand grass objection of the reasons and above. 16. Firstly will take the Cross objection filed by the assessee whereby the assessee submitted that assessing officer has not shown the mandatory notice under section143(2) of the Act. 17. In this