← All Phrases

“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
87
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
68
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
54
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
34
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
31
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
25
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
23
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
20
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

Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(1), Bandra Mumbai

ITA 3166/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(f)Section 69C

Corporation 12,20,035 Total 39,86,587 5. Being aggrieved by the relief granted by the First Appellate Authority. The Revenue also filed Cross Objections. Vide Common Order, dated 27/02/2023, appeals and cross objections pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 were disposed off by the Tribunal ... While deciding ITA No.2713/Mum/2022 & Cross Objection No.08/Mum/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2019- 2020 (taken as a lead matters), the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) restricting the disallowance to 5% of purchase made from the four parties giving separate reasoning. 6. Subsequent to the above decision

Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(1), Bandra East, Mumbai

ITA 3165/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(f)Section 69C

Corporation 12,20,035 Total 39,86,587 5. Being aggrieved by the relief granted by the First Appellate Authority. The Revenue also filed Cross Objections. Vide Common Order, dated 27/02/2023, appeals and cross objections pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 were disposed off by the Tribunal ... While deciding ITA No.2713/Mum/2022 & Cross Objection No.08/Mum/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2019- 2020 (taken as a lead matters), the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) restricting the disallowance to 5% of purchase made from the four parties giving separate reasoning. 6. Subsequent to the above decision

Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internation Tax)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2063/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 250

taxable in India and therefore, there is no question of setting off of loss from the earlier years. Accordingly, the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the aforesaid findings, the other ground in Cross Objection is purely academic in nature.” (emphasis supplied) Goldman Sachs (Singapore

Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internation Tax)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2062/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 250

taxable in India and therefore, there is no question of setting off of loss from the earlier years. Accordingly, the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the aforesaid findings, the other ground in Cross Objection is purely academic in nature.” (emphasis supplied) Goldman Sachs (Singapore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Paru Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai City

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the order of the FAA in deleting the addition made by the AO towards loss arising out of the M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. The grounds raised by the revenue are thus dis...

ITA 885/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 250

Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2025 O R D E R Paru Securities Pvt. Ltd. Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeals by the revenue and the Cross Objections (CO) of the assessee are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) /ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Guwahati [In short FAA'] passed under

DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Akshat Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1949/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

No.1949 /Mum/2025 & c.o. 94/Mum/2025 Akshat Vinimay Private Limited O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the revenue and cross objection by the assessee are filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under ... Being aggrieved by the said order, the revenue has preferred an appeal before us, and the assessee has filed a cross-objection. 3. The Ld. DR argued and stated that the appellate order itself is perverse and without considering the facts, the order was passed. The Ld.DR accepted the fact

DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 38/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.03/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Arising Out Of Ita No.38/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 43BSection 56

order passed CO No.03/Ran/19 by the ld. CIT(A), Ranchi, dated 20.11.2017 for the assessment year 2013- 2014. The assessee has also filed cross objection being CO No.03/Ran/2019 in revenue’s appeal being ITA No.38/Ran/2018. 2. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds :- In the matter ... u/s.37(1) of the Act on account of issue of non-quantifiable loss due to theft. This also is a part of the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO NO.03/Ran/2019. 16. Ld. CIT-DR drew our attention to para 9 to 9.7 at pages

M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.03/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Arising Out Of Ita No.38/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 43BSection 56

order passed CO No.03/Ran/19 by the ld. CIT(A), Ranchi, dated 20.11.2017 for the assessment year 2013- 2014. The assessee has also filed cross objection being CO No.03/Ran/2019 in revenue’s appeal being ITA No.38/Ran/2018. 2. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds :- In the matter ... u/s.37(1) of the Act on account of issue of non-quantifiable loss due to theft. This also is a part of the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO NO.03/Ran/2019. 16. Ld. CIT-DR drew our attention to para 9 to 9.7 at pages

M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 221/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.04/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) (Arising Out Of Ita No.200/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.221/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 56

order CO No.04/Ran/19 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Ranchi, dated 20.03.2018 for the assessment year 2014-2015. The assessee has also filed cross objection being CO No.04/Ran/2019 in revenue’s appeal being ITA No.200/Ran/2018. 2. First, we shall decide the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.221/Ran/2028, wherein following ... being heard. This issue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Now, coming to the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.200/Ran/2018 and the Cross Objection of the assessee being CO No.04/Ran/2019, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision

DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 200/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.04/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) (Arising Out Of Ita No.200/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.221/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 56

order CO No.04/Ran/19 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Ranchi, dated 20.03.2018 for the assessment year 2014-2015. The assessee has also filed cross objection being CO No.04/Ran/2019 in revenue’s appeal being ITA No.200/Ran/2018. 2. First, we shall decide the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.221/Ran/2028, wherein following ... being heard. This issue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Now, coming to the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.200/Ran/2018 and the Cross Objection of the assessee being CO No.04/Ran/2019, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur vs. Shivani Cotton Industries Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 460/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

fact remains that, the Revenue has challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) by filling appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed cross objection and submitted that, since he has got relief from the learned CIT(A), there is no necessity of filling further appeal before the Tribunal ... substance of the ratio laid down by the various Courts are that, although, the assessee did not filed the appeal or Cross-Objection against the Order of the learned CIT(A), but, yet it can file a petition under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 to support

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

A.Y.2017-18 arising out of order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 23.05.2023. Cross objection is filed by the assessee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged in trading in Iron & Steel and filed ... assessee. 7. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before us and assessee filed a cross objection. Firstly, we proceed to adjudicate the cross objection filed by the assessee. Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.428/VIZ/2024 C.O. No. 16/VIZ/2024 M/s. Vizag Re-Bars Private

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Guntur vs. Potti Kumara Naga Venkata Sai Chakravarthy, Guntur

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 368/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

fact remains that, the Revenue has challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) by filling appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed cross objection and submitted that, since he has got relief from the learned CIT(A), there is no necessity of filling further appeal before the Tribunal ... substance of the ratio laid down by the various Courts are that, although, the assessee did not filed the appeal or Cross-Objection against the Order of the learned CIT(A), but, yet it can file a petition under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 to support

Income Tax Officer, Guntur vs. Madhusushana Venkata Subba Rao Potti, Guntur

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 367/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

fact remains that, the Revenue has challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) by filling appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed cross objection and submitted that, since he has got relief from the learned CIT(A), there is no necessity of filling further appeal before the Tribunal ... substance of the ratio laid down by the various Courts are that, although, the assessee did not filed the appeal or Cross-Objection against the Order of the learned CIT(A), but, yet it can file a petition under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 to support

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Ms.Vijayasai Lakshmi Srinivasa Cotton Mills, Guntur

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 359/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

fact remains that, the Revenue has challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) by filling appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed cross objection and submitted that, since he has got relief from the learned CIT(A), there is no necessity of filling further appeal before the Tribunal ... substance of the ratio laid down by the various Courts are that, although, the assessee did not filed the appeal or Cross-Objection against the Order of the learned CIT(A), but, yet it can file a petition under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 to support

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Penamaluru

ITA 278/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 69

assailed before us having been rendered as merely academic in nature is left open. CO. No. 08/Viz/2024 ITO vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru 30. Resultantly, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as having been rendered as academic in nature. Order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Shri Upendra Prasad, Loherdaga

In the result, both i.e. the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Shri Upendra Prasad, Circle-2, Prop. M/S Bina Cement, Near Block Vs. Ranchi. More, Loherdaga-835302 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Alypp 3084 C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Patna-3, Patna in appeal No. CIT(A), Ranchi/10747/2019-20 dated 23/05/2023 for the A.Y. 2017-18 and the C.O. No. 01/Ran/2023 is the cross objection filed by the assessee in the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 167/Ran/2023. 2. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, ld. Sr.DR is represented on behalf ... submission that the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue is liable to be modified for which he has filed cross objection. It was an alternate prayer that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 5. In regard to the issue of the cash

Sh. Yash Paul Khanna Prop., Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

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

ITA 211/ASR/2007[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Oct 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250(6)Section 263

photocopy of my American Passport as desired by you in the summons u/s 131.” 13. The above statements and answers in course of cross objection are directly in contradiction to the contents of affidavits, statements, documentary evidences and submissions filed by the assessee in support of his argument to prove

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mahavir Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Mahavir Associates Income Tax, Circle – 24(1), बनाम Gala No. 1, Apollo Chamber, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mogra Pada Road, Andheri Chambers, Mumbai – 400012, East, Mumbai – 400 069, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfm0307L Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.83/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1134/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2015-16) Mahavir Associates V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Gala No. 1, Apollo बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 24(1), Chamber, Mogra Pada 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Road, Andheri East, Chambers, Mumbai – 400 012, Mumbai – 400 069, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfm0307L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By : Shri Narendra Patel, Ar Revenue By: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 144Section 41(1)

Hearing 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The instant appeals preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee emanate from the appellate order passed by the Learned P a g e | 2 C.O. No. 83/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Mahavir ... Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. P a g e | 18 C.O. No. 83/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Mahavir Associates Mumbai 8. Grounds of Cross Objection - C.O. No.83/MUM/2025 1. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ACIT has erred in law and in facts, in filing

JCIT(OSD) Central Circle 1, Jhandewalan vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 1085/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 07.10.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection i.e. ITA No. 1085/Del/2024 and CO No. 36/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)-23, New Delhi’s in case ... justified in deleting the addition of Rs.20,18,53,648/- on account of loss occurred due to theft?” 4. The assessee’s cross objection CO No. 36/Del/2024 on the other hand raises the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances