“cross objection”

ACIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. Parul Diamond, Mumbai

In the result, appeal and cross-objection filed by the revenue as well as the assessee respectively, stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. D/R Date of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2025 ORDER Per Bench: The present appeal by the revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are filed against the order dated 31/12/2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) – 51, Mumbai on following grounds:- Grounds of appeal ... assessee) for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09. 4. The assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete any of the cross objections.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- The assessee is a partnership firm that was engaged in the business of trading and export

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of CBDT Circular No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

323/MUM/2025 The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited O R D E R Per O. P. Kant (A.M.) This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the Assessee are directed against the order dated 28th April, 2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal ... merits pertaining to addition of Rs. 90,18,967/- made us 50CF of the Act.” 3. The grounds raised by the Assessee in its cross objection are reproduced as under: - “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Revenue erred in filing the appeal having

Income Tax Officer 19.1.1, Piramal Chamber Lal Baug vs. A J Diam, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Organized Tax Evasion", hence the appeal was maintainable despite the total tax effect was below the permissible limit. The assessee has not filed any cross objection, but has moved an application under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 in order to support the ground decided

Income Tax Officer-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Eleglance Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and the Assessee’s cross- objections stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY [J.M.] :- The instant appeals preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objection of the Assessee emanates from the order dated 21-08- 2025impugned herein passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A) - 51, Mumbai ... restricting the addition to the tune of 3% of the purchases as the same. Thus, the impugned order is upheld. 12. Coming to the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee, the Ld. Counsel, at the outset, for the ends of litigation submitted that in this case if the order

ACIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited, Mumbai

In the result, for all the

case of Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited as the lead case and our discussion hereunder shall mutatis mutandis govern all the connected appeals and cross-objections. 3. In the appeals of the Revenue in the case of Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited for the year under consideration, the common grounds ... entries; and that the assessee has reserved liberty to add, alter or amend grounds and file further submissions. 4. In the cross appeals and cross objections of the assessees, the principal issue raised is the challenge to the very validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C