← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Delhi, C.R. Building, New Delhi vs. Ajanta Raaj Proteins Limited, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3016/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Acit Vs Ajanta Raaj Proteins Ltd. Circle-1(1) 41/4, Friends Tower C.R. Building Sanjay Palace New Delhi. Agra-282005 (U.P) Pan-Aabca1137E Appellant Respondent C.O.No.-144/Del/2023 [In Ita No.3016/Del/2023] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ajanta Raaj Proteins Ltd. Vs Acit 41/4-A, Friends Tower Circle-1(1) Sanjay Palace, C.R. Building Agra-282005 (U.P) New Delhi. Pan-Aabca1137E Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Revenue & Cross-Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2023 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. C.O.No.-144/Del/2023 [In ITA No.3016/Del/2023] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] 8. In the Cross-objection filed, the assessee has challenged the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) in remanding the issue to the file of AO with respect ... find no error in the aforesaid observation of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the same is hereby, confirmed. All the grounds raised in the cross objection of the assessee are thus, dismissed. 11. In the final result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.3016/Del/2023 [Assessment Year 2017-18] is partly

Saheed Darshan Filling Station, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 3, Khanna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 1736/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1736/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shaheed Darshan Filling Station, The Ito, Village-Iraq, Kohara Road, Vs Ward-3, Machhiwara, So-Irak, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarfs1129H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & S.A. No. 5/Chd/2026 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1736/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shaheed Darshan Filling Station, The Ito, Village-Iraq, Kohara Road, Vs Ward-3, Machhiwara, So-Irak, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarfs1129H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sifatpreet Singh, Ca & Shri Amanjot Singh, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sifatpreet Singh, CA and Shri Amanjot Singh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

record carefully. 5. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient ... SIBAL] JUDGE [ LAPITA BANERJI] 30.04.2025 JUDGE 7. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, we allow the ground of appeal of Cross Objection and hold that notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in assessment year 2019-20 is bad in the eyes

ACIT, Circle 24(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Nilkamal Crates & Containers, Mumbai

ITA 3763/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: C.O. No. 146/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 3763/Mum/2025
Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

No.3763 & CO No. 146/Mum/2025 Nilkamal Crates & Containers O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The aforesaid appeal of revenue and the Cross Objection (CO) by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / NFAC, Delhi (for short “The Ld. CIT(A)”), dated ... revenue instituted the present appeal to assail the finding of Ld. CIT(A) on merits. On the other hand, assessee preferred to file a cross objection (CO) before the tribunal. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel representing the assessee (ld. AR) submitted that legal contentions raised by the assessee

ITO, Ward-30(5), Delhi vs. Raghav Goel, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department of revenue is dismissed and

ITA 734/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarito Ward 30(5) Vs. Raghav Goel Room No. 1210, 12Th C-156, East Of Kailash Floor, E-2 Block, Civic Delhi – 110065 Centre, J.L. Marg Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aixpg7355H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Hearing 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the department of revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are against the order dated 10.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (hereinafter referred ... Rs.5,62,930/- u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved the department of revenue and the assessee preferred above captioned appeal and Cross Objections, respectively. P a g e | 4 ITA No.734/Del/2025 & CO 85/Del/2025 Raghav Goel (AY: 2017-18) 5. In ITA No. 734/Del/2025 grounds of appeal of revenue

ITO, Ward- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Precision Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 9274/DEL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254Section 68

computation shall follow as per law. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 9274/Del/2019 is dismissed in very terms. 6. Coming to the assessee’s cross objection C.O. No.10/Del/2020, we find that the violation of section 147 to 151 of the Act as well as the tribunal’s first round remand ... foregoing terms. The assessee’s instant three appeals are partly allowed. 8. To sum up, the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.9274/Del/2019 and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No.10/Del/2020 are dismissed; and the latter three appeals ITA Nos.9038, 9039 & 9040/Del/2019 are partly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed

Precision Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(1), New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 9040/DEL/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254Section 68

computation shall follow as per law. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 9274/Del/2019 is dismissed in very terms. 6. Coming to the assessee’s cross objection C.O. No.10/Del/2020, we find that the violation of section 147 to 151 of the Act as well as the tribunal’s first round remand ... foregoing terms. The assessee’s instant three appeals are partly allowed. 8. To sum up, the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.9274/Del/2019 and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No.10/Del/2020 are dismissed; and the latter three appeals ITA Nos.9038, 9039 & 9040/Del/2019 are partly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed

Precision Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(1), New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 9039/DEL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254Section 68

computation shall follow as per law. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 9274/Del/2019 is dismissed in very terms. 6. Coming to the assessee’s cross objection C.O. No.10/Del/2020, we find that the violation of section 147 to 151 of the Act as well as the tribunal’s first round remand ... foregoing terms. The assessee’s instant three appeals are partly allowed. 8. To sum up, the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.9274/Del/2019 and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No.10/Del/2020 are dismissed; and the latter three appeals ITA Nos.9038, 9039 & 9040/Del/2019 are partly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed

Precision Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(1), New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 9038/DEL/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254Section 68

computation shall follow as per law. This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 9274/Del/2019 is dismissed in very terms. 6. Coming to the assessee’s cross objection C.O. No.10/Del/2020, we find that the violation of section 147 to 151 of the Act as well as the tribunal’s first round remand ... foregoing terms. The assessee’s instant three appeals are partly allowed. 8. To sum up, the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.9274/Del/2019 and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No.10/Del/2020 are dismissed; and the latter three appeals ITA Nos.9038, 9039 & 9040/Del/2019 are partly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Krupesh Jayantilal Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 921/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.921/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Asst.Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Someshwar Complex v/s. Ahmedabad – 380 014 Nr. Shyamal Row House Satellite Road Ahmedabad – 380 015 PAN : ACKPP 6963 B अपीलाथ)/ (Appellant) *+ यथ)/ (Respondent) .. AND Cross Objection No.66Ahd/2025 - िनधा"रण वष" /AY 2013-14 (in ITA No.921/Ahd/2025 – AY 2013-14) v/s. Krupesh Jayantilal Patel The ACIT 1, Someshwar Complex Central Circle ... /Date of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal by the Revenue and the corresponding Cross Objection by the assessee have been directed against the order of the Learned & CNo.66/Ahd/2025 (By Assessee) ACIT vs. Krupesh Jayantilal Patel Asst. Year

Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur vs. Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Sangli

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 2265/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2265/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur A/P Umadi Tal Jath, Vs. Dist. Sangli-416413 Pan : Aaets2962D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs M.N. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

hearing : 29-01-2026 Date of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against the order dated 29.07.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining ... Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. For the sake of convenience, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. ITA No. 2265/PUN/2025 by the Revenue. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that

ACIT-Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Incredible India Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad

ITA 605/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.605/Hyd/2022

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 270Section 271ASection 274

have appealed against the order. For supporting the order, it is not necessary for the respondent in the appeal to file a memorandum of cross objection challenging a particular finding that is rendered by the trial court against him, when the ultimate decree itself is in his favour ... ITAT Rules, 1963 is to defend/support the impugned order on the issue which is decided against the respondent without filing any appeal or cross-objection and therefore, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) would stand and will have full effect in so far as it is against

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the

ITA 5143/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 254Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(6)

pronouncement 30.01.2026 Order under section 254 (1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeals by Revenue and cross-objections therein by assessee are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) both dated 05.08.2024 for assessment year ... both the appeals, the revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal, certain facts in both the years are common, the assessee in its Cross Objections have also raised common grounds, thus, with the consent of parties both the appeals and cross objections filed by assessee are clubbed, heard together

DCIT-5(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the

ITA 5142/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 254Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(6)

pronouncement | 30.01.2026 | | ### Order under section 254 (1) of Income Tax Act # PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeals by Revenue and cross-objections therein by assessee are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) both dated 05.08.2024 for assessment year ... both the appeals, the revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal, certain facts in both the years are common, the assessee in its Cross Objections have also raised common grounds, thus, with the consent of parties both the appeals and cross objections filed by assessee are clubbed, heard together

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80HSection 8O

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Seema Puri, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-59(1), Delhi

ITA 7591/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7591/Del/2025 [Assessment

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7537/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43C

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

ACIT-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. United Fashion Apparels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objection are

ITA 6148/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 151ASection 250Section 68

revenue has filed appeal against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 whereas cross objection has been filed by the assessee for AY 2014- 15. Since the facts and grounds of appeal are similar, the appeals were clubbed and a common is passed ... press the CO. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 12. In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objection are dismissed. Order is pronounced on .02.2026. (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: .02.2026 Copy

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ska Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5966/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 148Section 151Section 250

Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 ORDER PER Bench: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee challenging the order dt. 02.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax M/s. SKA Sales Pvt Ltd, Mumbai ... National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment years 2016-17. 2. Since all the issues involved in the present appeal and cross objection are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Kumar Valchand Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 5887/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Kumar Valchand Jain आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ... learned CIT(A) is well-reasoned and free from legal or factual infirmity. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed. 18. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee