“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

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5507/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Date of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 ORDER Per Sandeep Gosain, JM: The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income ... assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since all the issues involved in these appeals and cross objections is common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly, we shall take

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantι.Τ.Α. Nos. 198 & 230/Mum/2025 A.Ys: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ito Officer 9 (1)(1) Room No. 205, Aayakar Bhavan Room No. 205, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) Vs Astra Exim Pvt Ltd Unit No. 4101, 4Th Floor, Oberoi Garden Estate, С- Wing, Off Saki Vihar Road, Chandivili, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aadca9987A (Respondent) Co. No. 108/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2014-15 Astra Exim Pvt Ltd Unit No. 4101, 4Th Floor, Oberoi Garden Estate, С- Wing, Off Saki Vihar Road, Chandivili, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aadca9987A (Appellant) Vs Ito Officer 9 (1)(1) Room No. 205, Aayakar Bhavan Room No. 205, М.К. Road Mumbai - 400020 (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Gaurav Bansal Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Cit –Dr & Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Per Sandeep Gosain (Jm): The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 24.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objection Are Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 198/Mum/2025, A.Y 2014-15 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 250

Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 ORDER Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai PER SANDEEP GOSAIN (JM): The present appeals have been filed by the revenue and cross objections by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 24.11.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the National ... Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. Since all the issues involved in these appeals and cross objection are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly

Income Tax Officer 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Astra Exim Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 ORDER Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai PER SANDEEP GOSAIN (JM): The present appeals have been filed by the revenue and cross objections by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 24.11.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National ... Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. Since all the issues involved in these appeals and cross objection are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)- 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marriott International Inc, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 34/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Krishna KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Poddar, Shri Karan Jain

Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

Mumbai - 400051. Maharashtra. …………. Appellant Vs Marriott International Inc 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B Wing, Sahar P & T colony SO, Mumbai - 400099 Maharashtra [PAN:AAECM8040K] …………. Respondent Cross Objection No.89/Mum/2026 (In ITA No.34/Mum/2026) (Assessment Year:2010-2011) Marriott International Inc 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B Wing, Sahar P & T colony SO, Mumbai - 400099 Maharashtra ... Date Conclusion of hearing : 04.03.2026 Pronouncement of order : 06.03.2026 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal and Cross Objection pertain to Assessment Year 2010-2010. The Revenue has preferred appeal challenging the Order, dated 25/11/2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore vs. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed &

ITA 1361/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250

passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the AY 2018-19. The assessee has also filed a cross objection in CO No. 20/BANG/2025 against the said appeal of the revenue in ITA No.1361/BANG/2025. 2. The revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal ... No.1361/Bang/2025 & CO 20/Bang/2025 M/s. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai Page 3 of 18 3. The assessee firm has raised the following Grounds in the Cross objection:- 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm running under the name and style of M/s. Raj Diamond and engaged

Income Tax Officer 17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Amritlal Nayak, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3485/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 68

Hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 ITA No.3485 & CO No.172/M/2025 Ashok Amritlal Nayak ORDER Per Bench: 1. This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee arise out of the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi ... balance addition. The 2 ITA No.3485 & CO No.172/M/2025 Ashok Amritlal Nayak Revenue is aggrieved by the relief granted, whereas the assessee in its Cross Objection has challenged both the reopening and the estimation of profit. 4. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had acted on credible information

ITO, Ward-2(1), Begusarai vs. Manish Kumar Motani, Khagaria, Bihar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 442/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri A.H. Chowdhary, DR

Section 133ASection 40A(3)

cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. At the outset, we note that the Cross Objection of the assessee is barred by limitation by 248 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons ... delay in filing the cross objection. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and admit

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2551/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra ChoudhuryFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153CSection 69C

Shantipally, 3 rd Floor, 2nd Floor 159, Rabindra Sarani, Vs. Kolkata-700107, West Bengal Kolkata-700007, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AANCS2337J Cross Objection Nos. 2 & 3/KOL/2026 (Arising in ITA Nos. 2550 & 2551/KOL/2025 for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively) M/s Siddheshwari Vyapaar DCIT, CC 1(2), Kolkata Private ... Kolkata-20 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] even dated 06.05.2025 for the AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16. ITA Nos. 2550 & 2551/KOL/2025 Cross Objection Nos. 2 & 3/KOL/2026 M/s Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited; AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Siddheshwari Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2550/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra ChoudhuryFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 153CSection 69C

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Brgd Sponge & Iron Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1966/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

above decisions upheld the order of Id. CIT (A) on this issue by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 11. So far as the Cross Objection is concerned, we note that the assessee has challenged the direction of the Id. CIT (A) to the Id. AO to make an addition ... sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Id. CIT(A) to the extent of this direction of making addition @ 5%. Accordingly, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. 18.We note that the Co-ordinate Bench has considered and followed the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cnetral Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are

ITA 1606/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhu Malti Ghosh, DR

Section 115BSection 153ASection 69A

account of unexplained cash payment without appreciating the material brought on record by the Id. AO whereas the assessee in its Cross Objection has challenged the order of Id. CIT (A) on various grounds. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that ... accordingly, the order of Id. CIT (A) is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 7. Coming to the Cross Objection No. CO No. 74/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18, at the time of hearing the same is not pressed and accordingly dismissed as not pressed.” Since the facts

Brgd Sponge & Iron Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

ITA 1403/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Shanti Devi Somani, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of revenue as well as cross objections of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2503/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Vs Chandu Somani, Kolkata 143/1/1, Cotton Street, Burra Bazar, Kolkata-700007 PAN No. :AXEPS 3622 D AND Cross Objection No.65/KOL/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2029/Kol/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Chandu Somani, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-3(2) 143/1/1, Cotton Street, Burra Bazar, Kolkata ... ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Vs Shanti Devi Somani, Kolkata 143/1/1, Cotton Street, Burra Bazar, Kolkata-700007 PAN No. : ALOPS 2029 Q AND Cross Objection No.63/KOL/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2503/Kol/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Shanti Devi Somani, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-3(2) 143/1/1, Cotton Street, Burra

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Chandu Somani, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of revenue as well as cross objections of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2029/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

DCIT 4(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumabi vs. Maharaja Builders Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 8156/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 8155/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. Ita No. 8156/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit 4(2)(1) Maharaja Builders Room No. 640, Aayakar Private Limited, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. 4A Vikas Centre S. Churchgate, Mumbai – V. Road, Santacruz 400 020 West, Mumbai – 400 054 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm7464M (Applicant) (Respondent) 3. C.O. No. 60/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. C.O. No. 61/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Maharaja Builders Dcit 4(2)(1) Private Limited, Room No. 640, 4A Vikas Centre S. V. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. Road, Santacruz West, K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 054 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm7464M (Applicant) (Respondent) & Co No. 61 & 68/Mum/2026 Maharaja Builders Private Limited

Section 127Section 253Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Date of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: These two appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee arise out of the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 dated 10.09.2025 for A.Ys ... Revenue has preferred the present appeals before this Bench against the relief granted by the CIT(A), Pune-12, while the assessee has filed Cross Objections in both the appeals. 4. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the impugned orders were passed

DCIT 4(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Maharaja Builders Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 8155/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Section 127Section 253Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

DCIT CC 5(1), Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2885/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 69C

Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 ORDER J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai PER Bench: The present appeals have been filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders dt. 20.02.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income ... Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. Since all the issues involved in these appeals and cross objections are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly

DCIT CC 5(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2884/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 69C