← 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

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Rameswarpur Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1843/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Addl. CIT Sr. D.R क" ओर से ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the revenue and the cross objection by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated ... find any infirmity in the impugned order, accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. In view of the discussion made above Cross objection filed by the assessee is also disposed of as it has been filed only to support the order. In the result, the appeal

Cobol Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

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

ITA 5505/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

Assessee) 67. The gist of grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal for AY 2016-17 and the assessee in Cross Objection is tabulated as under:- Sr No Issue Ground no. in appeal Ground no. in appeal of the assessee of the Department 1 Disallowance u/s.14A ... said grounds are dismissed for parity of reasons. Addition on Account of Notional Income:- 70. The solitary issue raised by the assessee in cross objections is against addition of Rs.94,83,439/- confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of Notional Interest. The contention of the assessee is that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Vimal Parwal, Jaipur

In the result , the appeal for the Assessment Year 2016-17 filed by the Revenue and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee for the same assessment year are also dismissed

ITA 1231/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 148Section 153CSection 250

rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These are appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-5, Jaipur all dated 05.08.2024passed under CO No. 16 & 18/JPR/2024 Vimal Parwal, Jaipur section ... amend, or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 2. Since the issue is involved in the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection of the assessee relate to the same assessment year are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 3. The brief facts of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Vimal Parwal, Jaipur

In the result , the appeal for the Assessment Year 2016-17 filed by the Revenue and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee for the same assessment year are also dismissed

ITA 1230/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 148Section 153CSection 250

rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These are appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-5, Jaipur all dated 05.08.2024passed under CO No. 16 & 18/JPR/2024 Vimal Parwal, Jaipur section ... amend, or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 2. Since the issue is involved in the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection of the assessee relate to the same assessment year are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 3. The brief facts of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Estate Officer, Huda Panchkula, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee in those appeals are also dismissed

ITA 221/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal & Ms. Rattan Kaur, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 148

HUDA, Plot No. C-3, Panchkula Circle, HUDA Complex, Sector 6, Panchkula- Panchkula 134109 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABFE8195K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Cross Objections Nos. 33 To 35/Chd/2024 In आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA Nos. 219 To 221 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 To 2016-17 Estate Officer ... Hearing : 03/02/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M: All the above appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the Assessee are against the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi each dt. 08/01/2024 pertaining to Assessment Years

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Estate Officer, Huda Panchkula, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee in those appeals are also dismissed

ITA 220/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal & Ms. Rattan Kaur, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 148

HUDA, Plot No. C-3, Panchkula Circle, HUDA Complex, Sector 6, Panchkula- Panchkula 134109 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABFE8195K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Cross Objections Nos. 33 To 35/Chd/2024 In आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA Nos. 219 To 221 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 To 2016-17 Estate Officer ... Hearing : 03/02/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M: All the above appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the Assessee are against the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi each dt. 08/01/2024 pertaining to Assessment Years

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Estate Officer, Huda Panchkula, Panchkula

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee in those appeals are also dismissed

ITA 219/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal & Ms. Rattan Kaur, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 148

HUDA, Plot No. C-3, Panchkula Circle, HUDA Complex, Sector 6, Panchkula- Panchkula 134109 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABFE8195K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Cross Objections Nos. 33 To 35/Chd/2024 In आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA Nos. 219 To 221 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 To 2016-17 Estate Officer ... Hearing : 03/02/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M: All the above appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the Assessee are against the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi each dt. 08/01/2024 pertaining to Assessment Years

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Gpg Cattle Feed Pvt. Ltd., Moga

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

ITA 210/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rupinder Kansal, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69

Talwandi Bhai, Head Office- H.No. 162, Ward-16, Opp. Bibi Da Gurudwara, Punjab- 142001 स्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: AAFCG2761C प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent अपीलार्थी/ Appellant Cross Objection No. 14/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 210/Chd/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 GPG Cattle Feed Pvt. Ltd. Vill: Machi Burga, Talwandi ... rightly deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) and we concur the findings given by him. Accordingly Ground No. 4&5 of Revenue appeal are dismissed. Cross Objection No. 14/Chd/2024 and Ground No. 6 of the Revenue Appeal 21. In this regard, the Ld. DR had drawn our attention to paragraphs

Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Satara, Income Tax Office Satara vs. Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Dahiwadi Man

In the result, Cross Objection appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1562/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1562/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, V Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Ward-3, Satara S Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan: Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, V The Income Tax Officer, Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, S Ward-3, Satara. Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan:Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Ar Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor – (Dr)(Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250

Officer, V Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Ward-3, Satara s Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. PAN: AATPK8947P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Cross Objection No.11/PUN/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, V The Income Tax Officer, Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, s Ward-3, Satara. Dahiwadi ... Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2015-16 dated 12/06/2024 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B dated 22/05/2023. 1.1 The Assessee has filed Cross Objection raising Legal Ground. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT Circle - 22(1), Mumbai vs. Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 250

No.266/MUM/2025 & CO No.46/MUM/2025 (A.Y.: 2015-16) O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.11.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income ... entries under the garb of Long Term Capital Gain/ Short Term Capital Gain Loss by manipulating/rigging up the share price." 3. While in its Cross Objection, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Uttamchand Rajmal Jain, Mumbai

In the result the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed in terms of grounds 2, 5 and 7 and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4714/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new grounds which may necessary” CO No. 224/Mum/2024 (By assessee) “ The following grounds of Cross Objections are without prejudice to one another. 1. The reassessment order u/s. 147 dated 25/05/2023 is illegal and invalid being without any authority ... invalid. 8. The Assessee (Cross Objector) craves leave to amend, alter, add or delete any or all of the above the grounds of Cross Objection.” 2. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee in its cross objection vide Ground 2,3,5 and 7 has raised legal issue

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1683/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.1684/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Cit, Shri Harjeet Singh Central Circle-31, House No.22, Mandkola Teh. New Delhi. Vs. Hathin, Faridabad Haryana-121001. Pan: Bpips2997Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.153/Del/2022 Arising Out Of Ita No.153/Del/2021 Assessment Year 2013-14 C.O. No.154/Del/2022 Arising Out Of Ita No.154/Del/2021 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Harjeet Singh Dy. Cit, House No.22, Central Circle-31, Mandkola Teh. Hathin, Vs. New Delhi. Faridabad Haryana-121001. Pan: Bpips2997Q (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 69A

Harjeet Singh and Shri Joginder Singh for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15. Assessee in the case of Shri Harjeet Singh also filed cross objections for both the assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common thus, these are taken together ... decided by a common order. 2. First, we take revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 1683/Del/2021 for Assessment Year 2013-14 and Cross objection No. 153/Del/2022 in the case of Shri Harjeet Singh. 3. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of learned Commissioner of Income

Oracle India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 19, New Delhi

ITA 1353/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal Singh, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153D

under: “5. It is in this factual backdrop that the learned CIT- DR could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee’s cross objection raises the foregoing legal issue of validity of the impugned assessment framed by the Assessing Officer dated 18.02.2015 itself; for want of a valid section

Income Tax Officer-2(2)(2), Firozabad vs. M/S Uma Glass Works, Industrial Estate, Firozabad

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 429/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.428/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.429/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ M/S Uma Glass Works Ward 2(2)(2), Firozabad. 22, Industrial Estate, Firozabad. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfu-5061-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.01/Agr/2025 (In Ita Nos. 428/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. Cross Objection No.02/Agr/2025 (In Ita Nos. 429/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Uma Glass Works Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 22, Industrial Estate Ward 2(2)(2), Firozabad. Vs. Firozabad. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfu-5061-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee (Ca) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

For Appellant: Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Glass Works Ward 2(2)(2), Firozabad. 22, Industrial Estate, Firozabad. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACFU-5061-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.01/Agr/2025 (in ITA Nos. 428/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. Cross Objection No.02/Agr/2025 (in ITA Nos. 429/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year ... Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The revenue is in further appeal before us for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 & 2015-16. The assessee has preferred cross-objections against the same. First, we take up revenue’s appeal for AY 2014-15 which arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner

Income Tax Officer-2(2)(2), Firozabad vs. M/S Uma Glass Works, Industrial Estate, Firozabd

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 428/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.428/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.429/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Income-Tax Officer बनाम/ M/S Uma Glass Works Ward 2(2)(2), Firozabad. 22, Industrial Estate, Firozabad. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfu-5061-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.01/Agr/2025 (In Ita Nos. 428/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. Cross Objection No.02/Agr/2025 (In Ita Nos. 429/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Uma Glass Works Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 22, Industrial Estate Ward 2(2)(2), Firozabad. Vs. Firozabad. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfu-5061-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee (Ca) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

For Appellant: Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Glass Works Ward 2(2)(2), Firozabad. 22, Industrial Estate, Firozabad. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACFU-5061-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.01/Agr/2025 (in ITA Nos. 428/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. Cross Objection No.02/Agr/2025 (in ITA Nos. 429/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year ... Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The revenue is in further appeal before us for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 & 2015-16. The assessee has preferred cross-objections against the same. First, we take up revenue’s appeal for AY 2014-15 which arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Reji Abraham, Chennai

In the result, CO of the assessee vide CO-53/Chny/2024 is dismissed

ITA 1762/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita-1762 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Reji Abraham, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) No.113, Janapriya Crest, Chennai. Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] आयकर अपील सं./Co-53 / Chny/2024, Assessment Years-2011-12 Reji Abraham, Assistant Commissioner Of Income No.113, Janapriya Crest, Tax, Corp-Circle-1(1) Pantheon Road, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Adqpr6864A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue For Ay-2011-12 & Ay-2011-12 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated Column-E, Herein Below:-

For Appellant: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 2(22)

initiation of 147 proceedings. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no merit whatsoever in the legal ground raised through this cross objection by the assessee. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore dismissed. 11.0. In the result, CO of the assessee vide

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Southwinds Project LLP, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 169/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

held to be unsustainable for want of jurisdiction and is therefore is quashed. The assessee thus succeeds on this ground raised in the cross objections and the same is allowed." Further in the case of DCIT Central Circle- 3(4), Kolkata vs. M/s. Followel Engineering Ltd vide

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. R C Gems, Bandra

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 813/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(3)

Hearing 07/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the department and cross objections by the assessee against separate impugned orders passed by CIT(A)-47, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3)/147 ... applying GP rate of such sales is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. In so far as cross objection by the assessee challenging that the balance addition sustained by the ld.CIT(A) could not have been made based on various proposition, the same are not accepted

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. R C Gems, Bandra

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 812/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)

Hearing 07/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the department and cross objections by the assessee against separate impugned orders passed by CIT(A)-47, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3)/147 ... applying GP rate of such sales is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. In so far as cross objection by the assessee challenging that the balance addition sustained by the ld.CIT(A) could not have been made based on various proposition, the same are not accepted

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. R C Gems, Bandra(East

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 721/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(3)

Hearing 07/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the department and cross objections by the assessee against separate impugned orders passed by CIT(A)-47, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3)/147 ... applying GP rate of such sales is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. In so far as cross objection by the assessee challenging that the balance addition sustained by the ld.CIT(A) could not have been made based on various proposition, the same are not accepted