← 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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 397/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.397/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 बनाम Ito, M/S Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., Ward-2(4), Vs. Ap09, Shalimar Bagh, Room No.398A, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aacca3522C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No.155/Del/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.397/Del/2016) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 बनाम M/S Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., Ito, Ap09, Shalimar Bagh, Vs. Ward-2(4), Room No.398A, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, Pan No.Aacca3522C New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 151Section 263Section 292BSection 68

AP09, Shalimar Bagh, Room No.398A, 3rd Floor, New Delhi. Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. PAN No.AACCA3522C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No.155/Del/2019 (Arising out of I.T.A No.397/Del/2016) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 बनाम M/s Antriksh Growth Fund Ltd., ITO, AP09, Shalimar Bagh, Vs. Ward ... षणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on ITA No.397/Del/2016 & CO No.155/Del/2019 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. The appeal and cross objection are filed by the Revenue and Assessee respectively against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi dated

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Netai Bhadra, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2386/KOL/2024[2020]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 11 The Cross Objection bearing C.O. No. 8/KOL/2025 arising out of ITA No. 2386/KOL/2024 is in support of the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). Since we set aside ... passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), and allowed the appeal of the Revenue for statistical purposes, the issues raised by the assessee in his Cross Objection have become infructuous. We accordingly dismiss the Cross Objection filed by the assessee as infructuous. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 2 dated 09.07.2024 passed for assessment year 2017-18 and 2016-17. 2. On receipt of notice, assessee has filed Cross Objections bearing Nos. 45/CHD/2024 and 46/CHD/2024 in assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18. 3. The Registry has pointed out that both the Cross Objections ... condonation of delay wherein it has been pleaded that earlier litigation was being held by Shri Varun Makhija, Tax Consultant, in whose opinion, no Cross Objection is to be filed because these are departmental appeals, however, when assessee contacted the Senior Counsel, then he opined to file Cross Objections challenging

DCIT, CC-1(4), Kolkata vs. Kkalpana Industries India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45

humbly submitted that Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules provides an opportunity to the respondent, where it has not filed any appeal or cross objection before the Tribunal to support the order of Id. CIT (A) on any ground decided against him by the id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ... case, the assessee was not an aggrieved party, as he had succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the ultimate analysis. Not having filed a cross objection, even when the appeal was preferred by the revenue, it does not mean that an inference can be drawn that the Respondent- assessee

ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad vs. Chaman, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2774/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

Section 147Section 250(4)

Date of hearing 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.06.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 2774/Del/2024 and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 for assessment year 2017- 18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ... instant latter ground as well as its main appeal ITA Nos. 2774/Del/2024 which is hereby rejected in the foregoing terms. The assessee’s cross objection C.O. No.103/Del/2024 stand rendered infructuous in above terms. 8. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No.2774/Del/2024 is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024

ITO(Exemptions)-2(2), Mumbai vs. P N Amersey Educational Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 3192/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriito(Exemptions)-2(2) Vs. P N Amersey Educational 614, 6Th Floor, Trust Mtnl Building, Laburnum House, Cumballa Hill, Laburnum Road, Peddar Road, Grant Road S.O, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400007. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatp0038K Appellant .. Respondent & Co No. 143/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3192/Mum/2025) P N Amersey Educational Vs. Ito(Exemptions)-2(2) Trust 614, 6Th Floor, Arvind House, Mtnl Building, Cs No180/1, Cumballa Hill, Quay Street, Peddar Road, Darukahana-400010. Mumbai-400026. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatp0038K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 3(1)

12/03/2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22, against which cross- objection is also filed by the assessee. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on facts and circumstances ... opportunity granted while making adjustment u/s 3(1) of the Income-tax Act?” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in its cross-objection: “1. The Id. ADDL/JCIT(A)-6, Delhi erred in not appreciating that claim of exemption u/s. 11 cannot be denied in the intimation