“cross objection”

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh Date Conclusion of hearing : 12.03.2025 Pronouncement of order : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. These appeals and cross-objections from part of batch of matters which were heard together. The present appeals and cross- objections arise from six separate orders of National Faceless ... aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal. The Assessee has filed Cross-objections supporting the order passed by the CIT(A). 3.9. Identical grounds have been raised by the Revenue in all the appeals and the same

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh Date Conclusion of hearing : 12.03.2025 Pronouncement of order : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. These appeals and cross-objections from part of batch of matters which were heard together. The present appeals and cross- objections arise from six separate orders of National Faceless ... aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal. The Assessee has filed Cross-objections supporting the order passed by the CIT(A). 3.9. Identical grounds have been raised by the Revenue in all the appeals and the same

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh Date Conclusion of hearing : 12.03.2025 Pronouncement of order : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. These appeals and cross-objections from part of batch of matters which were heard together. The present appeals and cross- objections arise from six separate orders of National Faceless ... aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeals before this Tribunal. The Assessee has filed Cross-objections supporting the order passed by the CIT(A). 3.9. Identical grounds have been raised by the Revenue in all the appeals and the same

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

pronouncement : 29/04/2025 Reliance Industries Ltd 2 ITA No. 3705/MUM/2024 & CO No. 153/MUM/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [in short ... ignoring the fact that the Ld. CIT (A) had not decided the appeal on merit? 2.1 The grounds raised by the assessee in its cross-objection are reproduced as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A): Reassessment order

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

dismissed the grounds of appeal of the appellant. In second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT-Mumbai, the appellant had filed the Cross Objections and Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide common order dated 27.06.2024 in ITA No. 1765/Mum/2023 and 1767/Mum/2023, had partly allowed the grounds of appeal in favor ... received by the respondent merely as a custodian/trustee, and hence, such funds are not income of the respondent. 8 We would first take up Cross Objection No. 2, 3 & 4 raised by the Assessee in relation to computation of income and exemption under Section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

dismissed the grounds of appeal of the appellant. In second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT-Mumbai, the appellant had filed the Cross Objections and Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide common order dated 27.06.2024 in ITA No. 1765/Mum/2023 and 1767/Mum/2023, had partly allowed the grounds of appeal in favor ... received by the respondent merely as custodian/trustee, and hence, such funds are not income of the respondent. 8 We would first take up Cross Objection No. 2, 3 & 4 raised by the Assessee in relation to computation of income and exemption under Section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

dismissed the grounds of appeal of the appellant. In second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT-Mumbai, the appellant had filed the Cross Objections and Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide common order dated 27.06.2024 in ITA No. 1765/Mum/2023 and 1767/Mum/2023, had partly allowed the grounds of appeal in favor ... received by the respondent merely as custodian/trustee, and hence, such funds are not income of the respondent. a 8 We would first take up Cross Objection No. 2, 3 & 4 raised by the Assessee in relation to computation of income and exemption under Section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

dismissed the grounds of appeal of the appellant. In second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT-Mumbai, the appellant had filed the Cross Objections and Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide common order dated 27.06.2024 in ITA No. 1765/Mum/2023 and 1767/Mum/2023, had partly allowed the grounds of appeal in favor ... received by the respondent merely as custodian/trustee, and hence, such funds are not income of the respondent. a 8 We would first take up Cross Objection No. 2, 3 & 4 raised by the Assessee in relation to computation of income and exemption under Section

Dy. Commmissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Prasad Shetty, Sion, Mumbai

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

No.3/Mum/2025 Prasad Shetty आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee against order dated 30/09/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.147/144 for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. In the grounds ... evidences under Rule 464 even though it was vehemently opposed by the AO based on circumstances of the case? 3. Where as in the cross objection assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. The assessment order dated 19-05-2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

assessee. Observation and finding in this respect in appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is extracted below: 9. The assessee has also filed a cross objection claiming that the assessee, being State/ an instrumentality of the State, cannot be imposed the income tax, but given the fact that the departmental ... fact that the learned counsel has stated that in the event of the departmental appeal being dismissed, the cross objection may be treated as not pressed, we see no need to deal with the same. We may, however, take on record learned counsel's statement that he may not press

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

assessee. Observation and finding in this respect in appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is extracted below: 9. The assessee has also filed a cross objection claiming that the assessee, being State/ an instrumentality of the State, cannot be imposed the income tax, but given the fact that the departmental ... fact that the learned counsel has stated that in the event of the departmental appeal being dismissed, the cross objection may be treated as not pressed, we see no need to deal with the same. We may, however, take on record learned counsel's statement that he may not press

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

assessee. Observation and finding in this respect in appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is extracted below: 9. The assessee has also filed a cross objection claiming that the assessee, being State/ an instrumentality of the State, cannot be imposed the income tax, but given the fact that the departmental ... fact that the learned counsel has stated that in the event of the departmental appeal being dismissed, the cross objection may be treated as not pressed, we see no need to deal with the same. We may, however, take on record learned counsel's statement that he may not press