“cross objection”

Qualcomm Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Tax -Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

taxable in India and therefore, there is no question of setting off of loss from the earlier years. Accordingly, the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the aforesaid findings, the other ground in Cross Objection is purely academic in nature.” 6. The following principles emanate

ACIT-19(1), Mumbai vs. M Nalin & Co, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s cross objection No

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit-19(1), Mumbai Vs M Nalin & Co 5Th 805,8Th Floor, Prasad Chambers, 506, Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400 Tata Road No.02, Opera House 012 Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Aaafm3223H Appellant Respondent

pronouncement : 28/03/2025 2 C.O. 74/Mum/2025 M Nalin & Co O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): Instant appeal by the revenue and the cross objection by the assessee were filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [for brevity ... with the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, whereas the assessee has filed a cross-objection, challenging the legal validity of the reassessment proceedings before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR argued and filed a paper book containing pages

ACIT 32 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Asha P Kedia, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the Assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit 32 1 Ms. Asha P Kedia 252, Kautilya Bhavan, 602, Vishwananak Bldg, Bkc, Bandra East, Vs. Ict Link Rd, Maharashtra - 400051. Andheri East, Maharashtra - 400099. Pan: Aiqpk0746F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.181/M/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3672/M/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Asha P Kedia Assistant Commissioner Plot No. 18, Sagar Jyoti, Of Income Tax-32 (1) 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Vs. 252, Kautilya Bhavan, Vile Parle (West), Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400056. 400020. Pan: Aiqpk0746F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17 . 03 .2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 . 03 .2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal By The Revenue Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 21.05.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. Co. No. 181/Mum/2024 Ms. Asha P Kedia 2. Considering The Delay Of 4 Days In Filing Of The Co By The Assessee Is Miniscule, Bonafide & Unintentional As Claimed By The Assessee Is Condoned.

Pronouncement : 28 . 03 .2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal by the Revenue Department and the Cross Objection by the Assessee have been preferred against the order dated 21.05.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income ... merit. The Assessee though succeeded on merit but could not get succeeded on the legal ground and thus has preferred the instant cross objection, wherein the Assessee has raised the legal issue and therefore for the sake of brevity we are inclined to decide the same first, before proceeding

DCIT(It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bay Lines ( Mauritius), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR 25/03/2025 28/03/2025 आदेश / O R DER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee against separate impugned order dated 12/03/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 and 13/03/2018 for the A.Y.2014-15. 2. In both the appeals the Revenue ... take into account that FCIPL is exclusively and almost excessively acting as an agent on behalf of non-resident principal. Whereas in the cross objection the assessee stated that Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that place of effective management of assessee company is neither in Mauritius

DCIT(It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bay Lines ( Mauritius), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Rapelli Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR 25/03/2025 28/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee against separate impugned order dated 12/03/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 and 13/03/2018 for the A.Y.2014-15. 2. In both the appeals the Revenue ... take into account that FCIPL is exclusively and almost excessively acting as an agent on behalf of non-resident principal. Whereas in the cross objection the assessee stated that 1d. CIT(A) has erred in holding that place of effective management of assessee company is neither in Mauritius