← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Bhupendra Steels P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 710/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Central Circle 1, Vs. Bhupendra Steels P. Ltd., Gurugram. 1098, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaacb0104B) Co No.101/Del/2023 (In Ita No.710/Del/2020) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bhupendra Steels P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 1, 1098, Chitranjan Park, Gurugram. New Delhi. (Pan : Aaacb0104B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2025 Date Of Order : 20.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.12.2019 For Ay 2011-12 & The Assessee Has Also Filed

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 153(1)(b)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 153D

Appeals)-3, Gurugram [“ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 04.12.2019 for AY 2011-12 and the assessee has also filed 2 CO No.101/Del/2023 cross objections against the impugned order of ld. CIT (A) dated 04.12.2019. 2. Since the issues are common, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed ... this common order. 3. First we take up cross objections filed by the assessee where the assessee has taken a legal ground i.e. Ground No.4 which read as under :- “4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT (A) ought to have quashed the impugned

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lotus Grih Nirman Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Cc-7(3), Mumbai M/S Lotus Grih Nirman Pvt Ltd. Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, 1201,12Th Floor Lotus Link Square, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Near Apna Bazar, D N Nagar, New Mumbai-4000202 Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai- 400 053 Pan No. Aabcl 0864 D Appellant Respondent Co No. 105/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1484/Mum/2025) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Lotus Grih Nirman Pvt Ltd. Acit, Cc-7(3), Mumbai 1201,12Th Floor Lotus Link Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, Aayakar Square, Near Apna Bazar, D N Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Nagar, New Link Road, Andheri Mumbai-4000202 West, Mumbai- 400 053 Pan No. Aabcl 0864 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj SoniFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM Lotus Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 1484/MUM/2024 & CO No. 105/MUM/2025 This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 49, Mumbai [in short ... assessment year 2018-19. 2. Regarding the cross-objection, the Registry pointed out delay of 28 days in filing before the ITAT. In response, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice of the Revenue‘s appeal was received on 20.03.2025, whereas, in the cross objection memo filed

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Harsh Sandeep Thakore, Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1703/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Renu Jauhri, Am Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Harsh Sandeep Thakore 4Th Floor, Harvansh, N. S. Road, 8, 502, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle, West, Mumbai – 400049. Pan/Gir No. Aaapt4930A (Appellant) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 81/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1703/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Harsh Sandeep Thakore 4Th Floor, Harvansh, N. S. Road, 8, 502, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle, West, Mumbai – 400049. Pan/Gir No. Aaapt4930A (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri. Reepal Tralshawala Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Respondent: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (SR. DR.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 148Section 250Section 54F

which was towards disallowance of the claim of the deduction of the assessee u/s. 54F of the Act. The assessee by way of cross objection has challenged the reopening of the assessment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return ... 1703/Mum/2024 & C.O. No. 81/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10) Harsh Sandeep Thakore 15. As we have dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, the cross objection challenging the assessment order requires no separate adjudication and therefore the grounds raised by the assessee in the cross objection are rendered academic. Order pronounced

Income Tax Officer (E), Lucknow vs. M/S. Vikat Educational Trust, Lucknow

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

ITA 394/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer M/S. Vikat Educational V. (Exemption) Trust T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, U.P.S.I.D.C 32-A, Chandralok, Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Aliganj, Lucknow-226020. Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan: Aaecc5529M (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 2/Lkw/2022 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 394/Lkw/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Vikat Educational Trust Ito (Exemption) V. 32-A, Chandralok, Aliganj, 4Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Lucknow-226020. Bhawan, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan: Aabtv6124D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shyam Lal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 05 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 115BSection 68

hearing: 05 05 2025 Date of pronouncement: 16 05 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: These appeal and cross objection by the Revenue and Assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Lucknow dated 07.09.2020, pertaining ... sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. First, we will take up the Cross Objection No. CO. No.2/LKW/2022 Page 2 of 8 2/LKW/2022 by the assessee wherein the assessee has taken up following grounds of cross objection: - “1. BECAUSE Learned Commissioner

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Prabha Farms Private Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1748/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 26.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment 2 C.O. No.07/PUN/2025 year 2013-14. The assessee is also in cross objection against the appeal of the Revenue. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in agricultural ... result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Since we have dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and do not require any adjudication. Hence, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as such

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar vs. Kailas Bansilal Sethi, Suregaon, Kolpewadi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1011/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Vs. Kailas Bansilal Sethi, Suregaon, Kolpewadi, Kopargaon- 423602. Pan : Bdpps0675A Appellant Respondent C. O. No.09/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1011/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kailas Bansilal Sethi, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Suregaon, Kolpewadi, Ahmednagar. Kopargaon- 423602. Pan : Bdpps0675A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Vinay V. Kawdia (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Vinay V. Kawdia (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 144Section 148Section 69A

order dated 27.03.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment 2 C.O. No.09/PUN/2025 year 2015-16. The assessee is also in cross objection against the appeal of the Revenue. 2. First, we shall take up the cross objection filed by the assessee for adjudication. C.O. No.09/PUN/2024 ... assessee has raised the following grounds in cross objection :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating legal ground numbers 2 and 5 pertaining to validity of reassessment proceedings raised before him. 2. On the facts and circumstances