“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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. South Delhi Promoters Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6402/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

Choudhary, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] – 14, New Delhi dated 28.10.2016 pertaining to Assessment Year ... Enquiry report of the Inspector of Income tax also revealed that no such entity ever existed on the given address." 3. The cross objections of the assessee read as under: Ground Grounds of Cross Objection Tax Effect No. Jurisdictio That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly

Anantpur Kalpana, Gangavathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Anantpur Kalpana, Vs. Ito, 1/1/1, Mahalaxmi Enterprises, Ward – 1, Hosakeri, Building Bamboo Bazar, Koppal. Gangavathi – 583 227, Karnataka. Pan : Clepk 8005 L Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 16.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. She Is Proprietrix Of A Business In The Name & Style Of Mahalaxmi Enterprises. The Business Consists Of Dealing In Beedi, Tea Powder & Pan Masala. For Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,49,520/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That There Were Several Cash Deposits In The Two Bank Accounts Of The Assessee. Out Of The Aforesaid Cash Deposits, The Ao Culled Out, The Deposits That Was Made Of Bank Notes That Were Declared As Not Legal Tender Owing To Demonetization Of Currency. The Details Of The Total Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In Her Bank Account & The Cash Deposits Of Cash/Currency Notes That Were Declared As Not Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 115BSection 68

reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 10. The assessee filed cross objections supporting the order of the Id. CIT(A). Since, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous, hence, dismissed. Page ... result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed." 8. Learned DR reiterated the stand of the Revenue as reflected in the order of the CIT(A). 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Both the AO and CIT(A) accepted

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Shushre Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed on merits

ITA 6225/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 264Section 4

pronouncement : 13/12/2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J. M. 1. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee against the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–27, New Delhi, for the quantum of assessment ... when original assessment was annulled. “ 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the legal issue as raised in Cross Objections now stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shreya Infra Developers

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1397/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 1397/Del/2016 [A.Y 2006-07]

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

Sarita Kumari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] – 25, Delhi dated 31.12.2015 pertaining to Assessment Year ... impugned order, more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search.” 4. Since the issues raised in the cross objections go to the root of the matter, we heard the representatives on the cross objections raised by the assessee. 5. Briefly stated, the facts

DCIT, Circle3-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 612/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92A

Shri Surender Pal, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 22.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 08.12.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : These appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee are preferred against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43 & 44, New Delhi dated 13.07.2018 & 28.11.2018 pertaining ... followed his order for A.Y. 2013-14. It was further submitted that the issues raised in Revenue’s appeal and the Cross Objection of the assessee are identical in A.Y. 2012-13 & A.Y. 2013-14 and the arguments made would be applicable for both the years

ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3589/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Acit, Circle 7(1), Room No. 413, M/S Delhi State Industrial & C.R Building, I.P Estate, Vs. Infrastructure Development, N- New Delhi. 36, Bombay Life Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001 Pan No. Aaacd1257F Revenue Assessee Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Cit D.R Assessee By : Shri. Shobhit Kansal, A.R Date Of Hearing : 08/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2021

For Appellant: Shri. Shobhit Kansal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)

ITA No.1052/Mum/2020 A.Y.2010-11 1 ACIT, Cir 4(2)(2) Vs. M/s Kaushal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. G S Pharmbutor P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 6716/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Kashyap, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date of Order : 08.12.2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : Aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are against the impugned order 2 ITA No.6716/Del./2018 dated 30.08.2018 passed by the ld. CIT (A)-35, New Delhi ... erred in calculating the proportionate disallowance of interest at Rs. 49,75,1211- wrongly.” Whereas the ground taken in cross objections is as under :- “1. That Restricting addition to Rs.40,75,121/- against Rs.3,36,00,0001- u/s 36(1)(iii) by the Ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable

DCIT, Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 6558/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92A

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6650/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

Date of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi dated 31.08.2017. 2. In ITA No. 6649/Del/2017, following grounds have

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6649/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alchem International Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, following the same order we dismiss the appeals of the revenue and cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 2828/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri [Dr.] Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh [CIT] - D. R

Section 6(3)(ii)Section 69C

Date of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date of pronouncement : 07/12/2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J. M. 1. These Departmental appeals & Assessee’s Cross objections are filed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)–29, New Delhi’s order dated 29.2.2016 (hereinafter as ‘CIT(A)’). Departmental ... grounds of appeal and assessee’s cross objections are reproduced as under: “ITA 2826/Del/2016 & CO 226/Del/2016 – A Y 2007-08 : 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alchem International Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, following the same order we dismiss the appeals of the revenue and cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 2827/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri [Dr.] Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh [CIT] - D. R

Section 6(3)(ii)Section 69C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alchem International Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, following the same order we dismiss the appeals of the revenue and cross objections are partly allowed

ITA 2826/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri [Dr.] Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh [CIT] - D. R

Section 6(3)(ii)Section 69C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alchem International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2825/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri [Dr.] Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh [CIT] - D. R

Section 6(3)(ii)Section 69C

Date of Hearing : 16/09/2021 Date of pronouncement : 07/12/2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J. M. 1. This departmental appeal & Assessee’s Cross objection are filed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)– 29, New Delhi’s order dated 29.2.2016 (hereinafter as ‘CIT(A)’). Departmental ... grounds of appeal and assessee’s cross objections are reproduced as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs 1,21,84,826/-, made

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. St. John Ambulance Association, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] – 36, New Delhi dated 21.10.2016 pertaining to Assessment Year ... assessment history of the assessee, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is dismissed. 16. The Cross objection has not been pressed and. as such, dismissed as not pressed. 17. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 55/DEL/2017

ACIT, Circle- 8(2), New Delhi vs. Ethical Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3796/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 68

Pranav Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] – 3, New Delhi dated 03.02.2018 pertaining to assessment year ... Assessing Officer on account of unexplained receipts income u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act']. 3. The cross objection by the assessee relates to the not quashing of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sh. Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the

ITA 6701/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

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

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 194CSection 2(22)(e)Section 68Section 69

approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D of the Act. He submitted that since, the assessee did not file any cross appeal or cross objection u/s 253(4) of the Act, he cannot invoke Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules to question the validity of the approval given u/s 153D ... personal expenses, long term capital 12 ITA Nos.6700 & 6711/Del/2016 gains etc. The assessee [Respondent before ITAT], admittedly did not file a cross appeal or cross objections under section 253(4) of the Act and sought to invoke Rule 27 to question the validity of the proceedings under Section 153C. Thus

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sh. Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the

ITA 6700/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

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

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 194CSection 2(22)(e)Section 68Section 69

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Subash Dabas, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 2399/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 68Section 69

amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 17. The assessee has filed the Cross Objection by raising the following grounds:- 1. That the appeal is not maintainable, particularly in view of Board’s Instructions issued from time to time ... deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 18. The assessee has filed the following additional grounds in the cross objection:- 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming additions made by the LD. A.O. in assessment order

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C S Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the ld AO are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 2894/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Vs. Cs Leasing Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-07, Room No. R/O. A-1, Cc Colony, Opp. 330, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Rana Pratap Bagh, New Extension, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaefc9884A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153CSection 234B

erred in law in deciding the case without going into merits of the case.” 3. The assessee has filed cross objections in CO No. 98/Del/2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10 raising following grounds of cross objections as under:- “1. That in the absence of challenge by the revenue ... same is dismissed. 21. As appeal of the ld AO is dismissed on jurisdictional issue and there is no requirement to deal with the cross objection of the assessee, which is on merit of the addition, hence, same, is also dismissed. 22. Similar, is the facts of the case