“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

Jatin Rajnikant Shah, Santacruz (E), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharishi Karve Road

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

ITA 4334/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 14ASection 69C

based on investments which have yielded exempt income. 71. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee and cross objection of the assessee are partly allowed. Vinay Ramanlal Shah HUF 72. Now we will take up the appeal in the case of Vinay Ramanlal

Ketan Ramanlal Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. JCIT Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4137/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2020-21

Section 14A

exempt income. Accordingly, this ground is partly allowed. 71. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee and cross objection of the assessee are partly allowed. Vinay Ramanlal Shah HUF 72. Now we will take up the appeal in the case of Vinay Ramanlal

Vinay Ramanlal Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4136/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 14ASection 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 923/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Section 148BSection 151

Ludhiana, Punjab बनाम Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 5/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपीलसं/ . ITA No. 922/Chd/ 2024) निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh ... Punjab बनाम Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab 2 स्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 6/Chd/2025 आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 923/Chd/ 2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 922/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2019-20

Section 148BSection 151

Ludhiana, Punjab बनाम Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N अपीलार्थी/Appellant Cross Objection No. 5/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपीलसं/ . ITA No. 922/Chd/ 2024) निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh ... Punjab बनाम Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab 2 स्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 6/Chd/2025 आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 923/Chd/ 2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Rosha Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 921/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Section 148BSection 151

Ludhiana, Punjab बनाम Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 5/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपीलसं/ . ITA No. 922/Chd/ 2024) निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh ... Punjab बनाम Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent 2 Cross Objection No. 6/Chd/2025 आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 923/Chd/ 2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi

Rosha Alloys P Limited, Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 888/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Section 148BSection 151

Ludhiana, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 5/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपीलसं/ . ITA No. 922/Chd/ 2024) निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh ... Punjab बनाम Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं/. PAN NO: AACCR5503N अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2 Cross Objection No. 6/Chd/2025 आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 923/Chd/ 2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rosha Alloys P Limited Amloh Road, Village Turan, Mandi

Isc Speciality Chemicals LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 45Section 47Section 47A(4)Section 48Section 50BSection 56

contention of the ld. A.R that on the conversion of the company into the assessee LLP no 'transfer' of capital assets was involved. The Cross Objection No. II is dismissed. 14. We shall now advert to the contention of the ld. A.R that the A.O has wrongly invoked ... 457/Mum/2025 AY: 2018-19 ISC Specialty Chemicals LLP assessee LLP (as a successor entity) under Sec. 170 of the Act. The "Cross Objection No. I" of the assessee is disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations.” 4.4.2. From the above, it is discernible that : A. Conversion of a company

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Matrix Publicitiies and Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5174/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Vs Matrix Publicities & Of Income Tax-16(1), Media India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 7Th Floor Bay 99, The Orb, Sahar P & T Colony, S.O., Mumbai 400099 (Pan: Aadcm8510H) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 69C

Hearing : 25.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Matrix Publicities and Media ... software expenses of Rs. 61,67,654/- which was treated as capital expenditure in absence of any corroborative evidence. 2.1. Grounds of cross objection raised by the assessee as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has: General Objection to Department’s Appeal

ACIT-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Retail Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4251/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate, Shri NimeshFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

4251/Mum/2024 and CO No. 194/Mum/2024 Reliance Retail Ltd., AY 2018-19 PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066202962(1), dated ... return was 30.09.2018. Accordingly, authorities below did not allow the claim of foreign tax credit to the assessee for which assessee is in cross objection before the Tribunal. 12.1. Claim of the assessee is that merely on account of procedural reasons of delay in filing of Form 67, the legitimate

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), New Delhi vs. Hb Estate Developers Limited, New Delhi

ITA 5557/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Date of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.05.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection CO No. 53/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069092710(1) dated 25.09.2024, in proceedings ... instant sole substantive grievance in very terms. 5. So is the outcome of it’s main appeal ITA No. 5557/Del/2024, the assessee’s cross objection CO No. 3 CO No. 53/Del/2025 HB Estate Developers Ltd. 53/Del/2025 supportive of the CIT(A)’s impugned action; stands rendered infructuous. 6. This Revenue

DCIT, Cr Building vs. Gulshan Polyols Limited, Laxmi Nagar

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5549/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 68

Date of hearing 28.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 28.05.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal (ITA No.5549/Del/2024) and assessee’s cross objection (C.O. No. 46/Del/2025) for assessment ITA No.5549/Del/ 2024 & C.O. No. 46/Del/2025 year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal ... instant sole substantive ground which is hereby rejected in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. The instant assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 46/Del/2025, being supportive, stands rendered infructuous. Dismissed accordingly. 6. To sum up, these Revenue’s appeal ITA No.5549/Del/2024 and assessee’s cross

DCIT, Centraql Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Geemed Promoters P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2242/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Geemed Promoters P. Ltd., Central Circle-28, F-6, Second Floor, New Delhi. Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecg1614P Co No.114/Del/2018 (Ita No.2242/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Geemed Promoters P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, F-6, Second Floor, Central Circle-28, Vijay Chowk, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecg1614P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.01.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi Co No.114/Del/2018 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.298/16-17/Cit(A)-29 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 19.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-28, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10 Crore On Account Of (Paid - Up Share Capital, Share Premium & Security Premium) Credited In Its Books Of Accounts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Discharged Its Primary Onus To Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transaction During Assessment Proceedings.” 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any/All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). The assessee has filed Cross Objection. 2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The grounds of Cross Objections read as under:- “1. The learned CIT(A), erred in confirming the ad hoc addition of Bank deposit of Rs 1,70,000/- (Rupees

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Ludhiana vs. Leeford Healthcare Ltd., Punjab, Ludhiana

The appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 551/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax बनाम Central Circle 3, Ludhiana Punjab Amit Kumar C/o Leeford Healthcare Ltd., LEO House, DugriDhadra Road, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं/ . PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलार्थी/ Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 23/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Hitesh Bhakoo, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 271Section 271A

Leeford Healthcare Ltd., LEO Punjab House, DugriDhadra Road, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana "ायी लेखा सं/.PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Cross Objection No. 23/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/. ITA No. 549/Chd/ 2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Amit Kumar बनाम Dy. Commissioner of Income ... Ludhiana LEO House, DugriDhadra Road, Punjab Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 "ायी लेखा सं/.PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Cross Objection No. 24/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/. ITA No. 551/Chd/ 2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leeford Healthcare Ltd., बनाम Dy. Commissioner of Income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Amit Kumar, Ludhiana

The appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 549/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL .YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Ludhiana Punjab बनाम Amit Kumar C/o Leeford Healthcare Ltd., LEO House, DugriDhadra Road, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं/ . PAN NO: ACBPK3657Q अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No. 23/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं/ . ITA No. 549/Chd/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 20

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Hitesh Bhakoo, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 271Section 271A

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Seyad Trading Company, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 300/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [CIT(A)] dated 11.11.2024 for Assessment Year 2017- 18. In this appeal, a Cross Objection No.28/Chny/2025 is also filed by the assessee. 2. The registry has noted delay of 20 days in filing the cross objection. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit ... Assessee, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the cross objection for adjudication. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case

ITO, Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Laxmilal Sethia, Mumbai

In the result, both, appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 588/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Laxmilal Sethia, Assessee in personFor Respondent: Shri. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

588/Mum/2025 Laxmilal Sethia, A.Y. 2011-12 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad, dated 29.11.2024 passed against the assessment order of Income Tax Officer ... proved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income under section 68” 6. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, reopening of the assessment has been challenged. Since the substantive ground on the merit of the case for the addition

Hemant Gordhanbhai Patel, Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1684/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69

dismissed the appeal of the Department, with the following observations: “4.1. Though both the parties have raised various grounds in their respective appeal and Cross Objection. The short point is to be decided is whether the investment made by the assesse of Rs. 23.06 crores in Mutual Fund is assessable

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 286/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 32

assessee. Subsequently, the Department filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the cross objections were filed by the assessee on subject disallowance. The Hon'ble ITAT vide its order - 5 - ITA Nos.283 to 286/Chny/2025 dated 13.07.2020 upheld the order

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 285/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 32