“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

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Taylormade Renewables Limited, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 418/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 35(1)(ii)

Hearing 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal ITA No.418/Ahd/2025 & C.O. No.44/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) ITO vs.Taylormade ... leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal.” 5. The assessee has filed cross objection, raising the following grounds: - “1. Ground No. 1: The Ld. ITO has erred in filing law and guidelines by issued by the CBDT vide

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Pragati Green Meadows & Resorts Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1795/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HONBLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HONBLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

Resorts Limited. ITA No. 1795/Hyd/2017 and CO No.31/Hyd/2025 O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad, dated 31.08.2017 and they pertain ... Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convince, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The Revenue has filed following grounds of appeal

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. M/S. Indic Wisdom Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5922/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Date of hearing : 11/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 26/11/2025 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section ... assessee and deleted the addition. Aggrieved by the relief granted, the revenue is in appeal on merits. The assessee has filed a cross-objection challenging the legal grounds. 4. The Ld. DR argued that the addition was rightly made by the Ld. AO under section

Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), New Delhi vs. Kolahai Infotech Private Limited, Delhi

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3554/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-31 [“ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 25.03.2025 for Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. The assessee has also filed cross objections in the aforesaid assessment years. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals and cross objections are connected, hence the same are heard ... together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First we proceed to hear the cross objection raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17. CO No.138/Del/2025 (AY 2016-17) 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the instant case

Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Delhi vs. Kolahai Infotech Private Limited, Delhi

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3553/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Kuldeep Kaur, New Delhi

Accordingly, the cross objections filed by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is allowed

ITA 5978/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumaracit, Circle 28 (1), Vs. Kuldeep Kaur, New Delhi. S – 493, Greater Kailash Part Ii, New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aigps1433B) Co No.95/Del/2025 (In Ita No.5978/Del/2024) (Assessment Years : 2016-17) Kuldeep Kaur, Vs. Acit, Circle 28 (1), S – 493, Greater Kailash Part Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aigps1433B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate Shri S.S. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi 2 CO No.95/Del/2025 [“ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 28.10.2024 for AY 2016-17. The assessee has also filed cross objections in the aforesaid assessment year. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals and cross objections are connected, hence the same are heard ... together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First we proceed to decide the cross objections raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is challenging the legal issue by taking

M.A. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1273/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

grounds is neither wilful nor intentional. In view of the above, the aforesaid additional grounds may kindly be admitted and adjudicated while hearing the cross objection filed by the assessee.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2379/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

/Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated & CO No.89/CHNY/2025 ... under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. The assessee’s cross objection is time barred by 24 days. The assessee has filed a petition to condone the delay accompanied by the affidavit of the Managing Director

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-

ITA 794/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliay

Section 132(4)Section 147

Hearing Date of pronouncement : 12/09/2025 : 25/11/2025 ITA No. 794 & CO 54/MUM/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 50, Mumbai [in short ... activity of providing accommodation entries through trading in scrips operated by Shri Naresh Jain; 2.1 The grounds raised by the assessee in cross-objection is reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Moradabad vs. Swati Menthol and Allied Chemicals Limited, Rampur

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

ITA 5090/DEL/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 68

Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- The above captioned appeal by the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 06.09.2024 for A.Y 2015-16 respectively. Page ... 5090/DEL/2024 & CO No. 23/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Swati Menthol and Allied Chemicals 2. Since the appeal and cross objections were heard together and pertain to same assessee, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The assessee has raised the following

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ekta Everglade Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

ITA 1489/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Shobit MishraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 92C

Jeph (CIT DR) Date of hearing : 15/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/11/2025 ORDER Per Bench: This bunch of four appeals by the revenue and four cross objections by the assessee were filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, (hereinafter called “Ld.CIT(A)”] passed ... find that the Ld.CIT(A) passed a combined order related to A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee only related to A.Ys 2013-14 to 2016-17. No appeal is filed related

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ekta Everglade Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

ITA 1488/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Shobit MishraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 92C

Jeph (CIT DR) Date of hearing : 15/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/11/2025 ORDER Per Bench: This bunch of four appeals by the revenue and four cross objections by the assessee were filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, (hereinafter called “Ld.CIT(A)”] passed ... find that the Ld.CIT(A) passed a combined order related to A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesseeonly related to A.Ys 2013-14 to 2016-17. No appeal is filed related to AY 2012-13. All the appeals

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ekta Everglade Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1487/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shobit MishraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 92C

Jeph (CIT DR) Date of hearing : 15/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/11/2025 ORDER Per Bench: This bunch of four appeals by the revenue and four cross objections by the assessee were filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, (hereinafter called “Ld.CIT(A)”] passed ... find that the Ld.CIT(A) passed a combined order related to A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesseeonly related to A.Ys 2013-14 to 2016-17. No appeal is filed related to AY 2012-13. All the appeals

DCIT, Cir-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ekta Eveglade Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

ITA 1486/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shobit MishraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 92C

Neena Jeph (CIT DR) Date of hearing : 15/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/11/2025 Per Bench: This bunch of four appeals by the revenue and four cross objections by the assessee were filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, [hereinafter called “Ld.CIT(A)”] passed ... find that the Ld.CIT(A) passed a combined order related to A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesseeonly related to A.Ys 2013-14 to 2016-17. No appeal is filed related to AY 2012-13. All the appeals

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 Pan :Aadcc0273D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 PAN :AADCC0273D (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross-Objection No.148/Del/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.1445/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. CDS Infra Projects Ltd., B- Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 94, Okhla Industrial ... hearing 26.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 ITA No. 1445/Del.2023 & CO No.148/Del/2023 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objections filed by the assessee are against order dated 08.03.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar

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

ITA 1572/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

hence, the addition should have been deleted. 3] The respondent craves to leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above cross objections. 12. So far as the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1404/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

Madanlal Lalchand Jain, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 1403/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

Hilton Dealmark Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal vs. Circle 7(1), Kolkata, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross Objection

ITA 1002/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 20Section 250

consequently, the notice dated 27/07/2022 is clearly barred by limitation and on this ground, the assessment proceedings u/s.147 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and all the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous. 10. In the result, appeal filed ... Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the present case, it admits of no doubt that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.07.2022 being clearly barred by limitation. In the case of the assessee the period of 6 years

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. Rajshri Iron Industries Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2388/KOL/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrisonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 02. First of all we shall take the appeal of the Revenue in ITA Nos.2385 /KOL/2024& Cross Objection of the assessee in CO No: 46/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19. A.Y. 2018-19 ITA No.2385 /KOL/2024 & CO No. 46/KOL/2025 03. The only issue ... addition of Rs. 21,27,60,640/- made by the AO u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Whereas the assessee by way cross objection challenged the part sustenance of the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,07,65,668/- being 5.06% of the total alleged purchases