“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

The ACIT, Circle, Ratlam vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam

ITA 956/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

MANISH BORAD, A.M: These two appeals filed by the revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 and Cross Objection filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Ujjain evenly dated 24.06.2016 which are arising out of the order ... r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.03.2015 & 31.08.2015 framed by DCIT, Ratlam. 2. Registry has informed that the Cross objection No.02/Ind/2020 and Cross Objection No.03/Ind/2020 filed by the assessee are time barred by three years 29 days. Ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit and condonation application requested

The ACIT Circle, Ratlam vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam

ITA 955/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.S. Chawla & Songs (HUF), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2724/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 147Section 153CSection 154Section 50CSection 55ASection 69A

Date of Pronouncement 18.05.2021 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM : The I.T. Appeal is filed by the Department and the Cross Objection is filed by the assessee against the order dated 3/02/2015 passed by CIT (Appeals)-15, New Delhi, for assessment year 2008-09. These were heard ... proceedings without calling for AO’s comments on such report? “ C. O. No. 456/Del/2015 [By Assessee] 3. The grounds of appeal raised in the Cross Objection are as under :- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and facts of the case in holding the reopening of assessment

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uv Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6033/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri D.C. Agarwal. Adv

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 24

pronouncement: 17 05 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee against the impugned order dated 19.07.2016, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kolkata for the quantum of assessment ... evidences filed by assessee without providing any opportunity to the AO in contravention of the Principal of Natural justice”. Whereas the assessee in his Cross Objection has challenged the validity of the assessment on the ground that Assessing Officer did not had valid jurisdiction over the case. The grounds raised

ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Dlehi vs. Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2608/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Vs Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(4), 148-149, Centrum Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L Co No.121/Del/2018 (Ita No.2608/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 148-149, Centrum Plaza, Ward-27(4), Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.121/Del/2018 The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 68

grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. CO No.121/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) 17. The grounds raised by the assessee in its Cross Objection reads as under:- “1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both in law & facts in making illegal addition of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- (Rupees

Digvijay Advisor Pvt. Ltd, Ghaziabad Up vs. ITO Ward-7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4540/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68Section 69C

merits-Revenue appealed against appellate order on merits-Assessee's cross appeal was on correctness of reopening of assessment- Tribunal upheld assessee's cross objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition

Vinod Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 2526/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand YadavFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

ITA.No.2550/Del./2015 7 ITA.No.2526/Del./2017 Shri Vinod Kumar, New Delhi. and C.O.No.146/Del./2018 vide Order Dated 09.08.2019 and cross-objection of the Assessee has been allowed and Departmental appeal have been dismissed. He has submitted that the issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee ... Krrish Realty Nirman Pvt. Ltd., ] has not been found. The ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of the assessee in Departmental Appeal and Cross Objection vide Order Dated 08.09.2019 considered the identical issue and declared the assessment order to be null and void. The Cross Objection of the Assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Accretive Health Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2129/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Accretive Health Services Circle-20(2), Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (Now Known As R1 Rcm Global Pvt. Ltd.) 17, Subhash Marg, Pan : Aahca 5178 K Daryaganj, Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.131/Del/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Accretive Health Services Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., Circle-20(2), (Now Known As R1 Rcm New Delhi Global Pvt. Ltd.) 17, Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi-110002 Pan : Aahca 5178 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Kumar Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 01/04/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 2 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the very same order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, New Delhi dated 12.01.2017 pertaining ... grounds are without prejudice and notwithstanding to each other. The Respondent craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all the above cross-objection of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. On the date of hearing an adjournment application

DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon vs. Dlf Universal Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and consequently, the cross objections filed by the assessee becomes infructuous

ITA 5963/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: 1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learnedFor Respondent: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in observing that the proceeding

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153Section 153A

Satyajeet Goel, CA Date of hearing 17.03.2021 Date of pronouncement 26.03.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 30/07/2017 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon [in 2 ITA No.5963/Del./2017 ... craves for the permission to add, delete or amend grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal. (ii) Grounds of Cross Objection of the assessee: 1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred

Hls Asia Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 12(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4269/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 192(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

that rule or procedure are hand-made of justice and merely on the ground that the assessee has omitted to file the appeal or cross objection, the additional grounds raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue are maintainable because ultimately the net result of the assessment proceedings should

Space Chem Engineers Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1791/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Ved Pal Tokas, New Delhi

In the result, Departmental appeal and Cross

ITA 1147/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Gujral, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Kunj, [vs. Mukherjee Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 070. Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi. PAN ACMPT9502C PIN - 110 002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.102/Del./2017 Arising out of ITA.No.1147/Del./2017 - Assessment Year 2012-2013 The ACIT, Circle-33(1), Room No.1305, 13th Floor, Shri ... ITA.No.1147/Del./2017 & C.O.No.102/Del./2017 Sh. Ved Pal Tokas, New Delhi. ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. The Departmental Appeal as well as Cross Objection are directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 11, New Delhi, Dated 06.12.2016, for the A.Y. 2012-2013. 2. Learned Counsel

JCIT (OSD), Circle- 12(2), New Delhi vs. Innodata India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S. Innodata Isogen Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

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

ITA 4344/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

Section 5(1)

/Del/2019 & CO .138/Del/2019 Date of hearing : 17.03.2021 Date of pronouncement : 17.03.2021 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, VP : This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-44, New Delhi, dated 11.03.2015. 2. The learned ... counsel for the assessee, vide its letter, received through email, dated 11.03.2021, has requested for withdrawal of the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the assessee and stated that the assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment year

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Brij Gopal Chauhan Prop., Noida

ITA 4679/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Aswani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 68Section 80C

Revenue both were in appeal. The co- ordinate bench in ITA. No. 1843 (Del) of 2015 filed by the Assessing Officer and Cross Objection No. 233 (Del) of 2016 filed by the assessee were decided on 27.09.2018. In para No. 8 the co-ordinate bench held that assessee should

Shri Brij Gopal Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4163/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Aswani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 68Section 80C

ITO, Ward- 126(2), New Delhi vs. Vichara Technology (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6142/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. Vichara Technology Ward – 126 (2) Vs (I) Pvt. Ltd. E-186, Greater New Delhi Kailash-I, New Delhi Pan No. Aabcv2180N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Vichara Technology Ward – 126 (2) Vs (I) Pvt. Ltd. E-186, Greater New Delhi Kailash-I, New Delhi PAN No. AABCV2180N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Cross Objection No.20/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Vichara Technology (I) ITO Pvt. Ltd. E-186, Greater Vs Ward – 126 (2) Kailash-I, New Delhi New Delhi ... Murty, Advocate Date of hearing: 23/02/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-13, New Delhi dated 30.06.2017 pertaining to A.Y.2011-12. 2. The appeal

ACIT, Circle-11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1023/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K Narasimha Charyasstt. Year 2003-04 Acit, Vs. Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 11(2), A-36, Mehtab House, Mohan Co- New Delhi Operative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 Pan Aaach7474G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CA

order dated 13th November, 2017 of Ld. CIT(A)-42, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2003-04. The assessee has also filed the Cross Objection. For the sake of convenience these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assesse ... applicable even to pending appeals. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Cross Objection 96/Del/2018 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has gone under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 to settle the dispute

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Metalloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1274/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Ajay Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D-230, Prashant Vihar, Circle -2 (1) New Delhi-110085 New Delhi PAN No. AAGCA1975P (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.104 & 105/ Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ajay Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Unit-1, 1st Floor, MCD Income Tax Building ... None Respondent by Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22.02.2021 Date of pronouncement 22.02.2021 ORDER PER BENCH These appeals and the cross objections by the assessee are directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi, dated 19.12.2016 passed for assessment years

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Metalloys Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1273/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

ITO, Ward- 29(3), New Delhi vs. Bimla Devi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee are to be treated as dismissed

ITA 7327/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7327/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs Bimla Devi, Ward-29(3), F-66, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpd5616E

For Appellant: Sh. Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Hearing: 16.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 16.02.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal by the revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)- 10, New Delhi dated 25.09.2017. 2. As per the instant Circular ... maintainable. The Ld. DR could not bring to our notice any exceptions mentioned in the said Circular. 4. As regards to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is concerned, since we have already dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Therefore, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become