“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

Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Superdeal Resources Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Wad 5(1), Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Ito, Ward 5(1), Associates, Advocates Sidha Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Vs. Chowringhee Square, 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-70069 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs7472E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

above decisions upheld the order of ld. 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 ld. CIT (A) to the ld. AO to make an addition ... sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) to the extent of this direction of making addition @ 5%. Accordingly, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed.” 08. We note that in the decision as extracted above, we find that in para 9 the coordinate bench

DCIT, Cental Circle 2(3), Kolkata vs. Lumino Industries Limited, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. Lumino Industries Ltd……………………............…..….…..….......……...…..…..Respondent Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] C.O No.57/Kol/2025 (In I.T.A. No.1223/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lumino Industries Ltd.......................................................................……….…Cross-Objector Unit No.12/4, Merlin Acropolis, E.K.T., Kol-700107. [Pan: Aaacd9817H] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata ……………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue & Cross Objections D By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Ay 2014-15. 02. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By 7 Days By The Revenue, For Which, Condonation Petition Has Been Filed. After Hearing Both The Parties & Perusing The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed By The Revenue, We Are Of The View That The

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Date of pronouncing the order : September 16, 2025 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: This is an appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objections d by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 26, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated ... warrant our interference. Accordingly, we uphold the appellate order by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue 19. In view of our above decision, the cross objections filed by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment for improper issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has become academic

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada vs. Sri Sai Engineering and Drilling, Vijayawada

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 63/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Income Tax, D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Circle-2(1), Second Lane, Lic Colony, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) C.O. No. 06/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Second Income Tax, Lane, Lic Colony, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

passed U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Asst. Year 2009-10. The assessee has also raised Cross Objection before the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of contract works ... Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has raised Cross Objections. 4. At the outset, the Ld. AR pleaded to adjudicate the legal ground raised in the Cross Objection since it goes to the root

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Venkatrama Poultries Pvt. Ltd., Guntur

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

ITA 231/VIZ/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble&

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

231/VIZ/2025 C.O. Nos. 19, 20, 21 & 22/VIZ/2025 Venkatrama Poultries Pvt Ltd. Se /ORDER PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT. BER: 1. These appeals and cross objections are filed by the revenue and assessee respectively, against the different orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Visakhapatnam — 3, [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT ... revenue in these appeals are common and identical, therefore, all these appeals are clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order being passed. Cross objections are filed by the assessee. Firstly, we take up the appeal in ITA No. 228/VIZ/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) as lead appeal and brief facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Venkatrama Poultries Pvt. Ltd., Guntur

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

ITA 230/VIZ/2025[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble&

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Venkatrama Poultries Pvt. Ltd, Guntur

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

ITA 229/VIZ/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble&

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Venkatrama Poultries Pvt Ltd, Guntur

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

ITA 228/VIZ/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble&

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 500/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

been decided by the co-ordinate bench of Jaipur ITAT in the case of Shri Vaibhav Banka in ITA no. 301/JP/2025 and the connected cross objection of assessee on it numbered as CO/2/JP/2025 wherein the bench has decided the issue by observing as under : 11. Now coming to the cross ... Abhisar Buildwell 2023 149 taxmann.com and the CBDT Instruction No. 1 of 2023 dated 23.8.2023. This direction is challenged by the assessee in cross objection filed stating that the action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, and against the facts of the case

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Ashok Nariyani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

such statutory non-compliance vitiates the entire assessment proceedings, therefore, rendering it to be null and void. Thus, the Cross Objection taken on the violation of the Principle(s) of Natural Justice is also allowed in favour of the assessees. ” T Takano Vs SEBI and Anr. In civil Appeal No.487-488 ... reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 10. The assessee filed cross objections supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A). Since, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous, hence, dismissed

Shyam Metalics Amd Energy Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 68

claim for the first time in terms of its claim u/s.254, accordingly, we admit the legal issue raised by the assessee in the cross objection and the objections raised by the ld. AR is rejected.” 21. In the view of the above decisions (supra), we thus admit the fresh claim ... form of refund of VAT and excise duty exemption while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 of the Cross Objections therefore stands allowed.” 26. Following the above decisions (supra), we thus hold that the incentive received under the SHIS / FPS Scheme, being in nature

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is allowed

ITA 4375/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Johnson & Johnson Income-Tax, Central Circle – Private Limited Vs. 3(4), Mumbai 501, Arena Space Off Jvlr, Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Jogeshwari East, S.O. Mumbai Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 40020 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacj0866E (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nikhil Tiwari/Shri Pranay Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 16.04.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14 & Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection.

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil Tiwari/Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14 and assessee has filed a cross objection. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified ... liable to be quashed: The Respondent craves to consider each of the above grounds of cross-objection without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross-objection.” 3. At the outset, it is noticed that

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Stypack Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 997/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Vs. Stypack Private Limited Ward-3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN :AACCS8673G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.27/Hyd/2024 (Arising out of आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.997/Hyd/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Stypack Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward ... principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid. (v) Any other grounds of Cross-Objection that may the raised at the time of hearing 3. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information gathered from the Insight Portal and the order dated

DCIT, Cen Cir 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

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

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & Cross-Objection Nos.43 & 44/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23 v. The DCIT, Jayapriya Company, Central Circle-2(2), 37, Sivavishnu Complex, Chennai ... तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee are against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, (hereinafter referred

DCIT, CC2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

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

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

DCIT- Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Radhamohan Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of the revenue challenging the decision of ld

ITA 1600/MUM/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Dcit - Central Circle-3(4), Radhamohan Marketing Mumbai Private Limited Room No. 25, Shanti Bhawan, 2Nd Vs. Floor, Near Brijwasi Sweet 198, Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai – 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aafcr5067C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 88/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1600/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Radhamohan Marketing Private Dcit - Central Circle-3(4), Limited Mumbai Room No. 25, Shanti Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Near Brijwasi Sweet 198, Vs. Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai – 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aafcr5067C (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 69A

88/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Radhamohan Marketing Private Limited O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal of the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), CIT(A) 51, Mumbai (in short ... impugned order, now the revenue is in appeal before us challenging such decisions of the ld. CIT(A), whereas the assessee has filed the cross objection against the appeal of revenue, challenging the impugned order on legal aspects, such as DIN Number not mentioned on the assessment order, validity

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Haresh Kumar Manjibhai Patel, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and is dismissed in its entirety

ITA 3633/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 69C

AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue, while the assessee has filed a Cross Objection, both directed against the order dated 12/06/2024 passed by the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), pertaining to the assessment year 2018–19. The impugned order emanates from the reassessment ... Hareshkumar Manjibhai Patel 19. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and is dismissed in its entirety. 20. Turning now to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, it is noted at the outset that the same is delayed by 257 days. An application for condonation of delay

West Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1009/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P

Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. Hence, all the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 10. The assessee filed cross objections in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Since the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed, the cross objections filed by the assessee ... becomes infructuous, hence, dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed." In view of above legal proposition, we hold that there is no intention of legislature to deny the benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) when