← 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

ACIT, Delhi vs. Smt. Sudesh Gahlot, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5947/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayassistant Commissioner Of Income V Smt. Sudesh Gahlot Tax, Central Circle -04, Room No. S B-5/4403, Block B-5 & 6 332, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Vsantkunj, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Pan: Aaupg7636A

Section 153C

Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 03/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal and Cross Objection are filed by the Revenue and the Assessee respectively challenging the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), New Delhi ... result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 5947/Del/2025 is dismissed. 6. Since we have dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee becomes in-fructuous. Accordingly, Cross Objection No. 235/Del/2025 filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Moradabad vs. Ritu Bhandula, Moradabad

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and assessee cross

ITA 2750/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 133(6)Section 69ASection 69C

OFFICER| Vs | RITU BHANDULA, 2(1), MORADABAD AVAS VIKAS, CIVIL AAYAKAR BHAWAN, LINES, MORADABAD CIVIL LINES, UTTAR PRADESH MORADABAD - UP [PAN: AHKPB8116F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & Cross Objection No.287/Del/2025 (A. Y.2020-21) RITU BHANDULA, Vs | INCOME TAX AVAS VIKAS, CIVIL OFFICER 2(1), LINES, MORADABAD MORADABAD UTTAR PRADESH AAYAKAR BHAWAN, [PAN: AHKPB8116F) CIVIL ... National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (in short “the Ld. NFAC)) relevant to assessment year 2020-21. The assessee also filed the cross objection for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. Law and facts of the case by deleting

DCIT Circle-28(1), Civic Centre New Delhi vs. Ashwani Khurana, New Delhi

ITA 4534/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Circle 28(1) Vs. Ashwani Khurana Room No. 1001, 10Th Floor 5, Green Avenue Vasant E-2, Block Civic Centre, Kunj, New Delhi – 110002 New Delhi – 110070 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaepk3731G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

No.4534/De/2024 CO. 12/Del/2025 AshwaniKhurana (AY: 2016-17) O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal and Cross Objection preferred by the Revenue and the Assessee against the order dated 24.07.2024 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority ... decisions. Thus, the approval is not sustainable under law.” 5. Thus, the groundsas raised have no substance.The appeal of revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection become infructuous and accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.02.2026 (Manish Agarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 11.02.2026 Rohit

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6211/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Date of hearing : 21/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 10/02/2026 O R D E R Per Bench : A bunch of appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee filed against the separate order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], order passed under section 250 of the Income ... amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 4. C.O. No.339/Mum/2025, Grounds of the assessee: “Grounds of cross-objections 1. That the Ld. CIT Appeal rightly deleted the addition there was no creditble information that establishes the existace of substantial foreign asset

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6209/MUM/2025[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Date of hearing : 21/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 10/02/2026 O R D E R Per Bench : A bunch of appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee filed against the separate order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], order passed under section 250 of the Income ... amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 4. C.O. No.339/Mum/2025, Grounds of the assessee: “Grounds of cross-objections 1. That the Ld. CIT Appeal rightly deleted the addition there was no creditble information that establishes the existace of substantial foreign asset

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6195/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Date of hearing : 21/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 10/02/2026 O R D E R Per Bench : A bunch of appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee filed against the separate order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], order passed under section 250 of the Income ... amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 4. C.O. No.339/Mum/2025, Grounds of the assessee: “Grounds of cross-objections 1. That the Ld. CIT Appeal rightly deleted the addition there was no creditble information that establishes the existace of substantial foreign asset

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6194/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Date of hearing : 21/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 10/02/2026 O R D E R Per Bench : A bunch of appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee filed against the separate order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], order passed under section 250 of the Income ... amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 4. C.O. No.339/Mum/2025, Grounds of the assessee: “Grounds of cross-objections 1. That the Ld. CIT Appeal rightly deleted the addition there was no creditble information that establishes the existace of substantial foreign asset

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed, and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 6193/MUM/2025[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A No.6192/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1999-2000 I.T.A. No.6193/Mum/2025 A.Y.: 1997-1998 I.T.A. No.6194/Mum/2025 A.Y. : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Akshay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Date of hearing : 21/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 10/02/2026 O R D E R Per Bench : A bunch of appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee filed against the separate order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], order passed under section 250 of the Income ... amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 4. C.O. No.339/Mum/2025, Grounds of the assessee: “Grounds of cross-objections 1. That the Ld. CIT Appeal rightly deleted the addition there was no creditble information that establishes the existace of substantial foreign asset

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

ITA 6192/MUM/2025[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR) Date of hearing 21/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 10/02/2026 ORDER Per Bench : A bunch of appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee filed against the separate order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)'], order passed under section 250 of the Income ... amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary." 4. C.O. No.339/Mum/2025, Grounds of the assessee: “Grounds of cross-objections 1. That the Ld. CIT Appeal rightly deleted the addition there was no creditble information that establishes the existace of substantial foreign asset

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 5(3), Mumbai vs. Unify Texturisers Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5055/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit Central Circle-5(3), Vs Unify Texturisers Private Limited Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Astral Centre, Nm Joshi Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Marg, Opp. Chinchpokli Railway Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Station, Mumbai-400011 Mumbai 400051 Pan: Aaacu8565F Appellant Respondent C.O. No.241/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5055/Mum/2025 A.Y. :2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 250

Date of pronouncement : 10/02/2026 2 CO No.241/Mum/2025 Unify Texturisers Private Ltd. O R D E R Per Bench: The appeal by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-53, Mumbai [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order ... reassessment itself is held to be invalid on legal grounds, the issues raised on merits do not survive for adjudication. 9. Accordingly, the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee in CO No. 241/Mum/2025 is allowed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No. 5055/Mum/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced

Sahara India Limited, Lucknow vs. The ACIT., New Delhi

ITA 1243/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) herein has erred ... 40/Lkw/2006 in preceding terms. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 45/Lkw/2006 stands declined therefore. 8. Learned senior counsel clarifies that the assessee’s cross objection herein C.O. No. 36/Lkw/2006 is only supportive of the CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion. Dismissed as rendered infructuous. C.O. No. 37/Lkw/2006 (Assessee

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 78/LKW/2006[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) herein has erred ... 40/Lkw/2006 in preceding terms. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 45/Lkw/2006 stands declined therefore. 8. Learned senior counsel clarifies that the assessee’s cross objection herein C.O. No. 36/Lkw/2006 is only supportive of the CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion. Dismissed as rendered infructuous. C.O. No. 37/Lkw/2006 (Assessee

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 46/LKW/2006[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) herein has erred ... 40/Lkw/2006 in preceding terms. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 45/Lkw/2006 stands declined therefore. 8. Learned senior counsel clarifies that the assessee’s cross objection herein C.O. No. 36/Lkw/2006 is only supportive of the CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion. Dismissed as rendered infructuous. C.O. No. 37/Lkw/2006 (Assessee

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 45/LKW/2006[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) herein has erred ... 40/Lkw/2006 in preceding terms. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 45/Lkw/2006 stands declined therefore. 8. Learned senior counsel clarifies that the assessee’s cross objection herein C.O. No. 36/Lkw/2006 is only supportive of the CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion. Dismissed as rendered infructuous. C.O. No. 37/Lkw/2006 (Assessee

ACIT, Lucknow vs. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 127/LKW/2006[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) herein has erred ... 40/Lkw/2006 in preceding terms. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 45/Lkw/2006 stands declined therefore. 8. Learned senior counsel clarifies that the assessee’s cross objection herein C.O. No. 36/Lkw/2006 is only supportive of the CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion. Dismissed as rendered infructuous. C.O. No. 37/Lkw/2006 (Assessee

Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT, Lucknow

ITA 898/LKW/2005[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1996-97 With Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sahara India Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-I, I - Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita No.45/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1997-98 With Ita No.46/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.37/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 1998-99 With Ita No.78/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.39/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2000-01 With Ita No.127/Lkw/2006 Along With C.O. No.40/Lkw/2006 Assessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Central Circle-I, Vs. Sahara India Limited, Lucknow I-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aadcs4402J (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate Sh. Devashish A Mehrotra, Ca Sh. Sarvesh Srivastava, Advocate Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

crores in the assessee’s hands for the precise reason to allow its main appeal ITA No.898/Lkw/2005 in very terms. C.O. No.36/Lkw/2006 (Assessee’s cross objection) AY: 1997-98 5. Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) herein has erred ... 40/Lkw/2006 in preceding terms. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 45/Lkw/2006 stands declined therefore. 8. Learned senior counsel clarifies that the assessee’s cross objection herein C.O. No. 36/Lkw/2006 is only supportive of the CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion. Dismissed as rendered infructuous. C.O. No. 37/Lkw/2006 (Assessee

DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana, Kitchlu Nagar vs. Mani Ram Balwant Rai HUF, Civil Lines

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1043/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 28Section 69C

Balwant Rai HUF Central Circle-3, Ludhiana Civil Lines, Opp- Session Court (Old) Ludhiana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGHM1535C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Cross Objection No. 44/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1043/Chd/ 2024) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23) Mani Ram Balwant Rai HUF बनाम ... Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-5, dt. 19/07/2024 for the assessment year 2022-23. The assessee has filed a cross-objection arising out of the said appeal. Since the appeal and the Cross Objection arise out of the same order and involve common issues, both were

Dilip Khandelwal ACIT Central Circle 2(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Satyanarayan Jagannath Kabra, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 940/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.940/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Asst.Year 2015-16 The Acit Satyanarayan Jagannath Kabra बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) 10, Amam Villa Bungalows V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 Hebatpura, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 014 Pan: Adgpk 2858 M अपीलाथ$/ (Appellant) %& यथ$/ (Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.47/Ahd/2025 - िनधा"रण वष" /Ay 2015-16 (In Ita No.940/Ahd/2025 – Ay 2015-16) V/S. Satyanarayan Jagannath Kabra The Acit 10, Amam Villa Bungalows Central Circle-2(1) Hebatpura, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad – 380 014 Pan: Adgpk 2858 M (Cross Objector) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

Amam Villa Bungalows v/s. Ahmedabad – 380 009 Hebatpura, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 014 PAN: ADGPK 2858 M अपीलाथ$/ (Appellant) %& यथ$/ (Respondent) .. AND Cross Objection No.47/Ahd/2025 - िनधा"रण वष" /AY 2015-16 (in ITA No.940/Ahd/2025 – AY 2015-16) v/s. Satyanarayan Jagannath Kabra The ACIT 10, Amam Villa Bungalows Central Circle ... Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial member: The captioned is an appeal by the Revenue and corresponding cross objections by the assessee preferred against the order dated 18/02/2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred

Income Tax Officer Ward 7.2.1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Raghavbhai Gordhanbhai Narola, Ahmedabad

Appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed, whereas, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1268/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Sinh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 250

Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the Revenue and corresponding cross objections by the assessee are against separate orders of ITA Nos.1266 to 1268/Ahd/2025 (By Revenue) & CO Nos.55 to 57/Ahd/2025 (By Assessee) ITO vs. Raghavbhai Gordhanbhai ... ground before the final hearing of the appeal.” CO No.55/Ahd/2025 - AY 2013-14 (in ITA No.1266/Ahd/2025 – AY 2013-14) 3. The assessee, in its Cross Objection, has taken following grounds (Without prejudice to each other): ITA Nos.1266 to 1268/Ahd/2025 (By Revenue) & CO Nos.55 to 57/Ahd/2025 (By Assessee) ITO vs. Raghavbhai

Income Tax Officer Ward 7.2.1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Raghavbhai Gordhanbhai Narola, Ahmedabad

Appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed, whereas, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1267/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Sinh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 250

Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the Revenue and corresponding cross objections by the assessee are against separate orders of ITA Nos.1266 to 1268/Ahd/2025 (By Revenue) & CO Nos.55 to 57/Ahd/2025 (By Assessee) ITO vs. Raghavbhai Gordhanbhai ... ground before the final hearing of the appeal.” CO No.55/Ahd/2025 - AY 2013-14 (in ITA No.1266/Ahd/2025 – AY 2013-14) 3. The assessee, in its Cross Objection, has taken following grounds (Without prejudice to each other): ITA Nos.1266 to 1268/Ahd/2025 (By Revenue) & CO Nos.55 to 57/Ahd/2025 (By Assessee) ITO vs. Raghavbhai