← 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

Income Tax Officer 11(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5279/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

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 M/S Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd., 105, Vastushilp, Rajmata Jijabai Road, Pump House, Andheri (E)

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, AR
Section 68

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 “The order of the assessment passed by the Ld. assessing officer ... with C.O. 50 Mum 2019 & ITA No. 612 Mum 2019 M/s Varad Vinayak Realty P. Ltd. 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 regard

Cenduit (India) Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

wherein it was held as under:- “10. We shall first take up for consideration Gr.No.2(b) raised by the Assessee in its cross objection, viz., the objection that the AO applied lower turnover filter of Rs.1 Crore and rejected companies with turnover of less than Rs.1 crore from ... No.57/Bang/2016 Page 11 of 25 appeal in the Revenue’s appeal regarding transfer pricing as well as the other grounds raised in the Cross-Objection.” IT(TP)A No.227/Bang/2021 Page 13 of 23 13. In view of the above order of the Tribunal and taking a consistent view, we direct

Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Amit Avinash Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 166/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

drawing legal inference that all the softwares have to be characterised as capital asset. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the cross objection are treated as allowed." 5. The above observations of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal can be safely applied to the case

Dy. CIT CC- 2(3), Mumbai vs. Amit Avinash Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 165/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

drawing legal inference that all the softwares have to be characterised as capital asset. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the cross objection are treated as allowed." 5. The above observations of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal can be safely applied to the case

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 123/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

drawing legal inference that all the softwares have to be characterised as capital asset. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the cross objection are treated as allowed." 5. The above observations of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal can be safely applied to the case

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. P & R Infraprojects Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 4944/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

case, the Assessee was not an aggrieved party, as he had succeeded before the CIT (A) in the ultimate analysis. Not having filed a cross objection, even when the appeal was preferred by the Revenue, it does not mean that an inference can be drawn that the Respondent– assessee ... therefore, in the appeal filed by the Revenue, it could rely upon Rule 27 and advance his arguments, even though it had not filed cross objections against the findings which were against him. The ITAT, therefore, committed a mistake by not permitting the assessee to support the final order

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiterbioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

appeals by the Revenue against orders of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 to 2005- 06 respectively and CO 6 to 10/Bang/2021 are cross objections by the Assessee in those appeals. ITA No.90/Bang/2008 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 whereby ... being heard together as common issues were involved. M/s.N.Tatia & Associates, Chartered Accountants claiming to be Authorized representative of the Official Liquidator has filed cross objections and those cross objections are purely supportive of the order of the CIT(A). In any event, the cross objections filed through Chartered Accountants N.Tatia

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

appeals by the Revenue against orders of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 to 2005- 06 respectively and CO 6 to 10/Bang/2021 are cross objections by the Assessee in those appeals. ITA No.90/Bang/2008 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 whereby ... being heard together as common issues were involved. M/s.N.Tatia & Associates, Chartered Accountants claiming to be Authorized representative of the Official Liquidator has filed cross objections and those cross objections are purely supportive of the order of the CIT(A). In any event, the cross objections filed through Chartered Accountants N.Tatia

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 950/BANG/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

appeals by the Revenue against orders of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 to 2005- 06 respectively and CO 6 to 10/Bang/2021 are cross objections by the Assessee in those appeals. ITA No.90/Bang/2008 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 whereby ... being heard together as common issues were involved. M/s.N.Tatia & Associates, Chartered Accountants claiming to be Authorized representative of the Official Liquidator has filed cross objections and those cross objections are purely supportive of the order of the CIT(A). In any event, the cross objections filed through Chartered Accountants N.Tatia

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiterbioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 627/BANG/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

appeals by the Revenue against orders of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 to 2005- 06 respectively and CO 6 to 10/Bang/2021 are cross objections by the Assessee in those appeals. ITA No.90/Bang/2008 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 whereby ... being heard together as common issues were involved. M/s.N.Tatia & Associates, Chartered Accountants claiming to be Authorized representative of the Official Liquidator has filed cross objections and those cross objections are purely supportive of the order of the CIT(A). In any event, the cross objections filed through Chartered Accountants N.Tatia

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 990/BANG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

appeals by the Revenue against orders of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 to 2005- 06 respectively and CO 6 to 10/Bang/2021 are cross objections by the Assessee in those appeals. ITA No.90/Bang/2008 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 whereby ... being heard together as common issues were involved. M/s.N.Tatia & Associates, Chartered Accountants claiming to be Authorized representative of the Official Liquidator has filed cross objections and those cross objections are purely supportive of the order of the CIT(A). In any event, the cross objections filed through Chartered Accountants N.Tatia

ACIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S. Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1232/BANG/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

appeals by the Revenue against orders of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 to 2005- 06 respectively and CO 6 to 10/Bang/2021 are cross objections by the Assessee in those appeals. ITA No.90/Bang/2008 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2002-03 whereby ... being heard together as common issues were involved. M/s.N.Tatia & Associates, Chartered Accountants claiming to be Authorized representative of the Official Liquidator has filed cross objections and those cross objections are purely supportive of the order of the CIT(A). In any event, the cross objections filed through Chartered Accountants N.Tatia

Textron India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 678/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumeeth Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R (OSD)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2022 O R D E R PERB.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The cross appeals filed by the parties and the cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the assessment order dated 16-03-2015 passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C ... Allowing deduction of expenditure ‘deducted from Export turnover’ from the Total turnover also while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 4. In the Cross objection, the assessee has only raised many general grounds relating to Transfer pricing adjustment. Hence, the Cross objection does not require any specific adjudication

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

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

ITA 594/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.678/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumeeth Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R (OSD)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 40

Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2022 O R D E R PERB.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The cross appeals filed by the parties and the cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the assessment order dated 16-03-2015 passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C ... Allowing deduction of expenditure ‘deducted from Export turnover’ from the Total turnover also while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 4. In the Cross objection, the assessee has only raised many general grounds relating to Transfer pricing adjustment. Hence, the Cross objection does not require any specific adjudication

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mitsui & Co., New Delhi

In the result, CO of assessee for A

ITA 5108/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 144C(3)Section 44B

Shri Lakshminarayan, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 25.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : These appeals by the Revenue and cross objection (CO) by the assessee are preferred against the very same order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, New Delhi dated 29.05.2015 pertaining ... partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and assessee has also filed Cross Objection. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mitsui & Co., New Delhi

In the result, CO of assessee for A

ITA 5106/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 144C(3)Section 44B

Shri Lakshminarayan, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 25.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : These appeals by the Revenue and cross objection (CO) by the assessee are preferred against the very same order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, New Delhi dated 29.05.2015 pertaining ... partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and assessee has also filed Cross Objection. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himtaj Builders P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee is

ITA 3930/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13]

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

Takyar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The Revenue and the assessee have filed appeal and Cross Objection against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi dated 29/4/2016 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. First we take ... considered view, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The ground by the Revenue is dismissed. 12. Now we take up the Cross Objection of the assessee. The assessee has raised following grounds of Cross Objection. From the grounds of Cross- Objection it is evident that the same

Aviva International Holdings Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 5650/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2009-10] &

Section 234B

89/Del/2019 Date of Hearing 16.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2021 ORDER PER C. N. PRASAD, JM : These appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2009- 10 against the orders of the Ld.CIT(A)-42 dated 09/06/2017. 2. At the outset ... Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee desire to withdraw its appeal in ITA No. 5650/Del/2017 and the Cross Objection No. 89/Del/2019, in the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 5588/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, as the dispute in appeal was settled with Commissioner

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Aviva International Holdings Ltd, London

Appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 5588/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2009-10] &

Section 234B

89/Del/2019 Date of Hearing 16.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2021 ORDER PER C. N. PRASAD, JM : These appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2009- 10 against the orders of the Ld.CIT(A)-42 dated 09/06/2017. 2. At the outset ... Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee desire to withdraw its appeal in ITA No. 5650/Del/2017 and the Cross Objection No. 89/Del/2019, in the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 5588/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, as the dispute in appeal was settled with Commissioner

Sunshine Educational & Development Society, Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Exemption, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4727/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 10(23)(c)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 194Section 2(15)Section 251(2)Section 40

section 11 has been overruled by the first appellate authority, which finding has now attained finality as revenue is not in appeal or in cross objection. The Assessing Officer has only taxed the surplus over income and expenditure account, however the ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to tax the entire