“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2234/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

issue of LOC, performance guarantee and financial guarantee be deleted.” CO Nos. 53 & 54/Mum/2022 Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2. The cross-objection no. 53 filed by the assessee are as under: “A. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') r.w. Rule ... business activities and thereby, there would not be any notional disallowance of interest expenditure.” Ground No. 1 of Revenue: Disallowance made u/s 14A and cross- objection no. 1 to 3 of the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that assessee claimed an amount

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co.Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2232/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2026/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Kuber Khaini Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and

ITA 885/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 27.09.2016 for AY 2006-07 and dated 27.01.2022 for the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The assessee has also filed cross objections in all the aforesaid assessment years. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being ... disposed off by this common order. ITA No.6053 /DEL/2016 ITA Nos.884 to 886/DEL/2022 CO No.18/Del/2017 CO Nos.186 to 188/Del/2022 First we take up cross objections filed by the assessee being CO No.186/Del/2022 for AY 2010-11 as lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following ground of appeal

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Amalapuram vs. Sri Venkata Satya Durga Devi Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Atreyapuram

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 342/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.341/Viz /2024 & 342/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Sri Venkata Satya Durva Devi Multipurpose Amalapuram Co-Operative Society Limited Atreyapuram [Pan : Abdfs7704H] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri DL Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-20, Revenue preferred these appeals, whereas justifying the action of the learned CIT(A), assessee preferred the cross objection. Since the facts involved in all these matters are same, we deem it just and convenient to dispose of all these matters ... sustained. Learned CIT(A) is perfectly justified in his findings and while upholding the same, we dismiss the Revenue appeals and allow the cross objections. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Amalapuram vs. Sri Venkata Satya Durga Devi Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Atreyapuram

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 341/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri DL Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Pramod Chand Mahnot, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department and C

ITA 162/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

JAIPUR VS SHRI PRAMOD CHAND MAHNOT, JAIPUR referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has also filed the cross objection. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Department in its appeal are as under:- ‘’1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Income Tax Officer, Vijayapur vs. Vikram Dalichand Bandari, Vijayapur

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1390/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Sudheendra B.R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has also filed cross objection against the said appeal of the revenue. & CO No.32/Bang/2024 Vikram Dalichand Bhandari, Vijayapura Page 2 of 15 2. The revenue has raised the following ... grounds of appeal: 3 The assessee has raised the following grounds of cross objection: & CO No.32/Bang/2024 Vikram Dalichand Bhandari, Vijayapura Page 3 of 15 & CO No.32/Bang/2024 Vikram Dalichand Bhandari, Vijayapura Page 4 of 15 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual engaged

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Jatin Jayantilal Desai, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purpose and CO filed by the assessee become infructuous

ITA 3838/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148aSection 250Section 253

additions. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue has challenging the present appeal before us and assessee has also filed cross objection. 6. The facts involved in the appeal and CO are common and hence clubbed and heard together and consolidated order is passed. Firstly we take

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. M/S. Delightful Estate Developers LLP, Kolkata

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

ITA 2309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Delightful Estate Developers Llp Acit, Cc 3(2), Kolkata Hasting Chamber, 5 Th Floor, Acit, Central Circle 3(2), Aaykar Room No.5C, 7C, Kiran Bhavan Poorva, 5Th Floor, 110, Vs. Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107, Shankar Roy Road Kolkata West Bengal G.P.O. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aamfd0344A Co No.04/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Delightful Estate Developers Llp Acit, Cc 3(2), Kolkata Hasting Chamber, 5 Th Floor, Acit, Central Circle 3(2), Aaykar Room No.5C, 7C, Kiran Bhavan Poorva, 5 Th Floor, 110, Vs. Shankar Roy Road Kolkata Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal G.P.O. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 37Section 47Section 68

against the order of ld. CIT (A) challenging the deletion of addition of ₹72,89,457/-, whereas the assessee has challenged by way of cross objection the legality of reopening of assessment by the ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act. Since, the assessee has raised legal issue ... assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, we are inclined to decide the first the legal issue raised in ground no.3 of the cross objection of the assessee. The said ground raised is as under:- “3. For that the proceedings u/s 147 initiated on the basis of vague reasons

Income Tax Officer Ward 4 1 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Panel Commerce Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1292/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Panel Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2) 4 Synagogue Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 8Th Floor, Room No. 814, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700001, 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcp4413P Co No. 1/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No.1929/Kol/2023 For A.Y. 2013-14) Panel Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2) 4 Synagogue Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 8Th Floor, Room No. 814, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700001, 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raghuveer Madanappa, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madanappa, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

partly deleting the addition, whereas ITA No.1292/KOL/2023 & CO No. 01/KOL/2024 Panel Commerce Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee filed the cross objection supporting the order of ld. CIT (A). 05. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal of the assessee in the very ... vide order dated 08.02.2024, wherein the reopening of assessment has been quashed. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue becomes infructuous and so is the cross objection filed by the assessee. 09. In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Financial Shared Services Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3333/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar,AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32

Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 : 04.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Bench: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee emanate from the order dated 21.07.2023 2 ITA No.3333/Mum/2023 CO.No.20/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2011-12 M/s Aditya Birla Financial Shared Services ... correctly disallowed the same. We therefore, uphold the disallowance and in result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed. C.O. No. 20/MUM/2024( Assessee) CROSS-OBJECTION-I: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action

Kandla Export Corporation, Gandhidham vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-2(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

ITA 155/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACFK1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) Cross – Objections (CO) No. 177/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Kandla Exports Corporation Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan ... Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACFK1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) IT(SS)A No.135, 136, 177, 178/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year.2011-12, 2012-13 Kandla Exports Corporation Cross – Objections (CO) No. 178/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Kandla Exports Corporation Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan

Income Tax Officer-1(2), Indore vs. Divine Infracreation and Trading Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 272/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 68(1)

that a plain reading of Rule 27 of the Rules would clearly show that even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross objection, they could still agitate the points, which were decided against them. Further it was pointed out that if any issue was not adjudicated ... framed for consideration was as to whether, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that it was necessary for the assessee to file cross-objection in spite of fully succeeding in appeal and therefore, it could not challenge the finding by the CIT(A), as the assessee being guilty

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Wave Distilleries and Breweries Limited, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Vibhu Jain and Sumit Lalchandani, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt. Richa Rastogi, CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 148

Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 29.03.2023 for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2017-18. 2. The assessee has preferred Cross Objections for all five Assessment Years (A.Ys) i.e. Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2017- 18. 3. Since the issues are mostly identical in all the appeals ... business of manufacture and sale of liquor by assessee were assessable in its hands. 8. The assessee has raised following common grounds of Cross Objection for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15: 1. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs. Anantharaman Venkatesh, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2555/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2555/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & C.O. No. 76/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No. 2555/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Anantharaman Venkatesh, Income Tax, 37/4&5, Sas Garden, Iii Floor, Non Corporate Circle 4, Sri Ram Nagar,. Chokkampudur Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 039. [Pan:Abspv8374P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, By Filing An Application Along With Form No. 1 Under Dtvsv 2024 & 2

For Appellant: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A

Revenue’s appeal, wherein, we dismissed the appeal in view of filing of Form 1 under DTVSV 2024 and acknowledgement thereon, consequently, the Cross Objection arising out of the said Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2555/Chny/2024 becomes academic and dismissed accordingly. 6. In the result, both the appeal filed ... Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on 28th February, 2025 at Chennai. (JAGADISH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 28.02.2025 Vm/- आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant, 2.""थ"/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु"/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Gopu Rajagopal, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections

ITA 1811/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 132(4)Section 69A

सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ीअिमताभशु"ा, लेखासद"केसम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1811/Chny/2024 & Cross-Objection No.69/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 v. The DCIT, Gopu Rajagopal, 1211, 12th Floor, Phoenix Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Apartments, Velacherry ... तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue& Cross-Objection preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Chennai- 19, dated

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani, Mumbai

ITA 3553/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Makwana Date Conclusion of hearing : 12.02.2025 Pronouncement of order : 28.02.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. The present appeal and cross objection pertain to Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Revenue has preferred appeal against the ITA No. 3553/Mum/2024& C.O. No. 227/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15 order, dated 16/05/2024 ... Order, dated 26/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Assessee has filed cross objection. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that notice under Section 148 of the Act (old regime) was issued to the Assessee

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani, Thane

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue in the departmental appeal in relation to the relief granted by the CIT(A) on merits are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 3552/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 250

Makwana Date Conclusion of hearing : 12.02.2025 Pronouncement of order : 28.02.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: 1. The present appeal and cross-objection pertain to Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Revenue has preferred appeal against the order, ITA No. 3552/Mum/2024& C.O. No. 226/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 dated 16/05/2024 ... Assessment Order, dated 29/05/2023, passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Assessee has filed cross-objection. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee for the Assessment Year