← 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, Vizianagaram vs. Chitripu Umamaheswara Rao, Vizianagaram

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 509/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.509/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Shri Chitripu Umamaheswara Rao, Vs. Vizianagaram. Vizianagaram. Pan:Aawpu2149L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.04/Viz/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 15/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 24/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 15/04/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: The appeal is filed by revenue and Cross Objections filed by Shri Chitripu Umamaheswara Rao (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless ... deleting the addition of Rs.3,47,85,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards short term capital gains. 3. Any other grounds of cross objection that may the raised at the time of hearing.” 10. The C.O. of the assessee is against the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.509/VIZ/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Annai Infra Developers Limited, Tamil Nadu

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

ITA 3329/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Central Circle 19, Vs. Annai Infra Developers Limited, No.7, 4Th Floor, Sds Enclave, New Delhi. 2/5, Perundurai Road, Erode, Tamilnadu – 638 011. (Pan : Aahca5802A) Co No.2/Del/2024 (In Ita No.3329/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Annai Infra Developers Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 19, No.7, 4Th Floor, Sds Enclave, New Delhi. 2/5, Perundurai Road, Erode, Tamilnadu – 638 011. (Pan : Aahca5802A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Harshit Srivastav, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2025 Date Of Order : 15.04.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 13.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 & The 2 Co No.2/Del/2024

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Srivastav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 234B

Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 13.09.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and the 2 CO No.2/Del/2024 assessee has filed cross objections which are basically in support of the ld. CIT (A)’s order. 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee company filed its return of income ... brought to our notice findings of the ld. CIT (A) at page 69 of the appellate order and he submitted that assessee has filed cross objections mainly in support of the findings of the ld. CIT (A) and he prayed that all the relevant informations were filed 7 CO No.2/Del/2024

ACIT, Circle-10(1) New Delhi, C.R Building ITO vs. Igroup Infotech India Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 263/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Delhi dated 19.01.2024 for A.Y 2015-16 and order of the ld. CIT(A) - 4, New Delhi dated 29.11.2024 for A.Y 2017-18 respectively. Cross objection has been filed by the assessee for A.Y 2015-16. 2. Since the underlying facts are common in both the appeals of the Revenue ... this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Briefly stated, the quarrel in both the appeals of the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee is in respect of treatment of products, namely turnitin and ithenticate being software solutions and not journals as mentioned in Form

ACIT, Circle-10(1), ITO, Cr Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi vs. Igroup Infotech India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1155/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

Delhi dated 19.01.2024 for A.Y 2015-16 and order of the ld. CIT(A) - 4, New Delhi dated 29.11.2024 for A.Y 2017-18 respectively. Cross objection has been filed by the assessee for A.Y 2015-16. 2. Since the underlying facts are common in both the appeals of the Revenue ... this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Briefly stated, the quarrel in both the appeals of the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee is in respect of treatment of products, namely turnitin and ithenticate being software solutions and not journals as mentioned in Form

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, C. R Building vs. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., Asaf Ali

In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3218/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanacit, Circle 10 (1), Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi. A-25/27, Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi Gate, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaact0927R) Co No.152/Del/2023 (In Ita No.3218/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 10 (1), A-25/27, Oriental House, New Delhi. Asaf Ali Road, Delhi Gate, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaact0927R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 44

Appeal Centre 2 CO No.152/Del/2023 (NFAC) [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short]dated 15.09.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee has also filed cross objections against the order of ld. CIT (A) dated 15.09.2023 for AY 2018-19. 2. First we take up Revenue’s appeal being ITA No.3218/Del/2023 ... Hence this ground no.3 is dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 13. Now we deal with cross objections filed by the assessee raising following grounds of appeal :- “1. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that

DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Hinanshu Verma, New Delhi

ITA 1956/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Himanshu Verma, New Delhi

ITA 1356/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Himanshu Verma, New Delhi

ITA 1355/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Himanshu Verma, New Delhi

ITA 1354/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

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

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Himanshu Verma, New Delhi

ITA 1353/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Himanshu Verma, New Delhi

ITA 1352/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

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

DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Himanshu Verma, New Delhi

ITA 1351/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

DCIT (It) 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Misc Berhard, Mumbai

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

ITA 6644/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) बनाम Dcit (It) – 3(2)(2), Mumbai M/S. Misc Berhard C/O Msc Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Himalayas, 2Nd Floor, Geetmala Complex, Near To Shah Industrial Estate, Deonar, Govandi, Mumbai – 400088. Pan: Aaccm 1736 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)

/Date of 09.04.2025 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by Revenue and Cross-Objection therein by assessee are directed against the order of learned CIT(A) -57, Mumbai dated 31.08.2016 for A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue has raised ... alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 2. The assessee, on services of memorandum of appeal, filed their cross- objections raising following grounds of cross-objections: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Odisha Sports Development and Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 498/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reported in (2024) 208 ITD 677 (Ahd), wherein it has been held as follows:- INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. TAKSHSHILA FOUNDATION (NGO) ITA No. 118/Ahd/2024 & Cross Objection No. 8/Ahd/2024; Asst. yr. 2022-23 Date of Decision 2nd July, 2024 Source (2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1345 (Ahd): (2024) 208 ITD 677 (Ahd) Charitable

Odisha Sports Development and Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Exemption Ward, Jeypore

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.496-498/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Odisha Sports Development & Vs Dcit, Exemption Ward, Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar Western Stand, Kalinga Stadium Bhubaneswar, Odisha Pan No. :Aabco 9237 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated All Dated 30.09.2024, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1069244316(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244321(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244327(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar Of The Assessee That The Assessee Is A Company Promoted By The Government Of Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Company’S Accounts Were Audited By Statutory Auditors. It Was The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reported in (2024) 208 ITD 677 (Ahd), wherein it has been held as follows:- INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. TAKSHSHILA FOUNDATION (NGO) ITA No. 118/Ahd/2024 & Cross Objection No. 8/Ahd/2024; Asst. yr. 2022-23 Date of Decision 2nd July, 2024 Source (2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1345 (Ahd): (2024) 208 ITD 677 (Ahd) Charitable

Odisha Sports Development Andpromotion Company, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.496-498/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Odisha Sports Development & Vs Dcit, Exemption Ward, Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar Western Stand, Kalinga Stadium Bhubaneswar, Odisha Pan No. :Aabco 9237 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated All Dated 30.09.2024, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1069244316(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244321(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244327(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar Of The Assessee That The Assessee Is A Company Promoted By The Government Of Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Company’S Accounts Were Audited By Statutory Auditors. It Was The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

reported in (2024) 208 ITD 677 (Ahd), wherein it has been held as follows:- INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. TAKSHSHILA FOUNDATION (NGO) ITA No. 118/Ahd/2024 & Cross Objection No. 8/Ahd/2024; Asst. yr. 2022-23 Date of Decision 2nd July, 2024 Source (2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1345 (Ahd): (2024) 208 ITD 677 (Ahd) Charitable

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Parvathipuram

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

ITA 61/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 & 62/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Tax, Parvathipuram. Central Circle-2, Pan: Aivpk2261L Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 & 62/Viz/2025) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Parvathipuram. Income Tax, Pan: Aivpk2261L Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Smt. A. Aruna ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/04/2025 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Smt. A. ArunaFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 1

61/Viz/2025 2016-17 26/11/2024 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 147 25/1070656473(1) 6. 62/Viz/2025 2018-19 27/11/2024 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 147 25/1070693116 (1) The assessee has also raised Cross Objections (C.O. Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14/Viz/2025). Since the Revenue’s appeals and Cross Objections are connected and pertain to the same assessee, all these appeals ... dismissed as not maintainable considering the low tax effect, the adjudication of Cross Objections filed by the assessee in the respective Assessment Years becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Parvathipuram

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

ITA 60/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 & 62/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Tax, Parvathipuram. Central Circle-2, Pan: Aivpk2261L Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 & 62/Viz/2025) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Parvathipuram. Income Tax, Pan: Aivpk2261L Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Smt. A. Aruna ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/04/2025 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Smt. A. ArunaFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 1

61/Viz/2025 2016-17 26/11/2024 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 147 25/1070656473(1) 6. 62/Viz/2025 2018-19 27/11/2024 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 147 25/1070693116 (1) The assessee has also raised Cross Objections (C.O. Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14/Viz/2025). Since the Revenue’s appeals and Cross Objections are connected and pertain to the same assessee, all these appeals ... dismissed as not maintainable considering the low tax effect, the adjudication of Cross Objections filed by the assessee in the respective Assessment Years becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Parvathipuram

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

ITA 59/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 & 62/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Tax, Parvathipuram. Central Circle-2, Pan: Aivpk2261L Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 & 62/Viz/2025) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Parvathipuram. Income Tax, Pan: Aivpk2261L Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Smt. A. Aruna ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/04/2025 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Smt. A. ArunaFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 1

61/Viz/2025 2016-17 26/11/2024 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 147 25/1070656473(1) 6. 62/Viz/2025 2018-19 27/11/2024 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 147 25/1070693116 (1) The assessee has also raised Cross Objections (C.O. Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14/Viz/2025). Since the Revenue’s appeals and Cross Objections are connected and pertain to the same assessee, all these appeals ... dismissed as not maintainable considering the low tax effect, the adjudication of Cross Objections filed by the assessee in the respective Assessment Years becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam vs. Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Parvathi Puram

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

ITA 58/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 & 62/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Tax, Parvathipuram. Central Circle-2, Pan: Aivpk2261L Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 & 62/Viz/2025) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19) Vamsee Krishna Kuppannagari, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Parvathipuram. Income Tax, Pan: Aivpk2261L Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Smt. A. Aruna ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/04/2025 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Smt. A. ArunaFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 1

61/Viz/2025 2016-17 26/11/2024 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 147 25/1070656473(1) 6. 62/Viz/2025 2018-19 27/11/2024 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 147 25/1070693116 (1) The assessee has also raised Cross Objections (C.O. Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14/Viz/2025). Since the Revenue’s appeals and Cross Objections are connected and pertain to the same assessee, all these appeals ... dismissed as not maintainable considering the low tax effect, the adjudication of Cross Objections filed by the assessee in the respective Assessment Years becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections