“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly vs. Ms Varuna Warehousing Private Limited, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 276/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-1 M/S Varuna V. Aaykar Bhavan, Kamla Nehru Warehousing Pvt Ltd Marg, Rampur Garden, Civil Shyam Ganj, Near Amar Lines, Uttar Pradesh-243001. Ujala Press, Uttar Pradesh-243005. Pan: Aaecc5529M (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 23/Lkw/2024 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 276/Lkw/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Varuna Warehousing Pvt Dcit, Circle-1 V. Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, Kamla Shyam Ganj, Near Amar Ujala Nehru Marg, Rampur Press, Uttar Pradesh-243005. Garden, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh-243001. Pan: Aaecc5529M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 119(2)(b)Section 154Section 244

hearing: 11 02 2025 Date of pronouncement: 20 02 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: These appeal and cross objection by the Revenue and Assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated ... hardship but the same was rejected by Ld. CCIT, Allahabad (copy of order is attached).” 2. The assessee has raised following grounds in cross objection: - “1. Because the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not directing for payment of interest on refund amount of Rs.79

Scit-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Basf India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6508/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 250Section 37Section 40

/02/2025 ITA No.6507 & 6508/Mum/2024 & CO No.24 & 25/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16) 2 ORDER PER BENCH 1. The present appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee have been filed against the separate impugned orders of even date 24/10/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income ... together and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the Revenue's appeal and assessee's cross objection for the assessment year 2014-15 is considered as a lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Basf India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6507/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 250Section 37Section 40

Income Tax Officer, Civil Lines, Raipur vs. Sandeep Jhabak, Raipur

ITA 418/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.418/Rpr/2024 Co No.16/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Sandeep Jhabak M/S. Allied Traders, Jhabak Bada, Near Tatyapara, Kamasipara (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adnpj2221L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54B

this ground alone. 4. That the cross objector craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of cross objection at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2013-14 on 31.10.2013 declaring

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Alom Extrusion Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed as the appeals are not maintainable on account of tax effect and the cross objection beco...

ITA 1424/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 68

1424/KOL/2024 C.O. No. 49/KOL/2024 AYs: 2016-17 & 2011-12 Alom Extrusion Limited. ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed ... ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at any time during the appeal proceedings.” 2.1. The assessee has raised the following grounds in cross objection before the Tribunal: III. C.O. No. 49/KOL/2024; AY 2011-12: “1. That the Assessing Officer made no additions in respect of alleged escapement

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Alom Extrusion Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1423/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 68

The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Vighnaharta Reality Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2370/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

For Appellant: Sl.Nos.1-6. Shri Dhiren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Sl.Nos. 1,3&5 Shri V.Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

referred to as “AO”] under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The assessees have also filed Cross Objections. Since the facts and issues in the cases are identical, all these appeals and COs are disposed of by way of this consolidated order ... Rs.1.80 CIT(A) crore deleted crore deleted 3. Aggrieved by the deletion of additions, the Revenue filed appeals before us, while the assessees filed cross-objections supporting the CIT(A)’s order and cross appeals challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. The detailed grounds are as follows: ITA Nos.2370

Shivganga Property Holders Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2206/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

For Appellant: Sl.Nos.1-6. Shri Dhiren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Sl.Nos. 1,3&5 Shri V.Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Shri Vighnaharta Realty Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2205/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Sl.Nos.1-6. Shri Dhiren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1,3&5 Shri V.Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

referred to as “AO”] under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. The assessees have also filed Cross Objections. Since the facts and issues in the cases are identical, all these appeals and COs are disposed of by way of this consolidated order ... crore deleted Addition of Rs.1.80 crore deleted 3. Aggrieved by the deletion of additions, the Revenue filed appeals before us, while the assessees filed cross-objections supporting the CIT(A)'s order and cross appeals challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. The detailed grounds are as follows: ITA Nos.2370

ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shivganga Property Holders Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Cos By :

For Appellant: Sl.Nos.1-6. Shri Dhiren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Sl.Nos. 1,3&5 Shri V.Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Neelaraj Vinoth, Perambalur vs. ACIT, CC-2, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2119/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Neelaraj Vinoth, Income Tax, V. 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -2, Perambalur – 621 212, Trichy. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, Assistant Commissioner Of 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, V. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

Document Identification Number (DIN) and being in contravention to the directions of the CBDT in Circular No.19 of 2019. Any other ground of Cross Objection that may be taken up at the time of hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is an individual proprietor

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Neelaraj Vinoth, Perambalur

ITA 1982/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Neelaraj Vinoth, 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur – 621 212, Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur – 621 212, Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Trichy. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate Department By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 16(1), Mumbai vs. Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6815/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 391Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

Hearing 11/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee of even date 28/10/2024 passed by CIT(A)-58, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C ... been passed in the case of non-existing entity. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. In so far as cross objections raised by the assessee, it has been admitted that the same will become infructuous if the assessment order is quashed. 11. In the result

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax 16(1), Mumbai vs. Culver Max Entertainmet Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6814/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 391Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

DCIT, Mum vs. Shelter Developers, Mum

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 3753/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)

3753/Mum/2023 & CO No.41/Mum/2024 M/s. Shelter Developers आदेश / O R DER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee against order dated 21/08/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2016-17 ... assessee aggregating to Rs.6,36,91,849/- out of the compensation amount received by the assessee claimed as revenue receipts; Whereas, assessee in the cross objection assessee has stated that entire compensation received as per the consent terms is in the nature of capital receipts and hence, not taxable

Chandan Raltors P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 761/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69A

matter is restored to the file of ITAT, which shall proceed to hear the parties on the merits of the appealas well as the cross objections, on issues, other than the nullity of the assessment order, on merits. The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Vinay Agrawal, Mahasamund

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 30/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per bench: The captioned appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee are instituted against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (in short ... r.w.s. 144B of the Act, both dated 25.05.2023. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the revenue and grounds of Cross Objections by the assessee are as under: Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 29/RPR/2025 (AY 2014-15): 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Vinay Agrawal, Mahasamund

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 29/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 29 & 30/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Soudamini Investments Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal ITA No

ITA 1453/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared. 2nd Appeal was e-filed

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objections have been preferred by the assessee, both emanating from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC ... 1453/Kol/2023 CO No. 14/Kol/2024 Soudamini Investments Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2016-17. The quantum appeal filed by the Department (ITA No. 1453/Kol/2023) and Cross Objections have been filed by the assessee (CO No. 14/Kol/2024). For the sake of convenience, the Department’s appeal will be taken as the lead

Cle Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6270/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT/DR &

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

legal aspect of the notice issued without obtaining proper approval as required u/s.151, the other legal aspects raised by the assessee in the present cross objection are rendered academic not warranting adjudication thereupon. 9.1. The impugned re-assessment proceedings have been quashed considering legal jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee ... cross objection, therefore the appeal of the Revenue contending on the merits of the case for which relief was granted by Id. CIT(A) has become infructuous and accordingly dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed