← 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

Cle Pvt Ltd, 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 6269/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10, Chennai vs. Arunchalam Veeraiah, Chennai

In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed and allow the cross objection

ITA 2320/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 148Section 153Section 69A

akra/Date of Hearing : 30.01.2025 arson &t anra /Date of Pronouncement + 14.02.2025 amet / ORDER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) The appeal of the revenue and Cross objection by the assessee are arising out of the order dated 21.06.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (in short ... prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored’. 4. Grounds of Cross Objections filed by the assessee are as under: “L) The Revenue erred in filing the appeal in ITA No. 2320/CHNY/2024 for the captioned assessment year against

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Buildspace LLP, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1484/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68

hearing : 13/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 14/02/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: This group of appeals were filed by the revenue and the cross objections by the different assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai (in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’) passed under section ... appeals have same nature of facts and common issue. Therefore, all the appeals of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are taken together, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.ITA No.1484/Mum/2019&CO No.43/Mum/2021 are taken as lead case. The ground taken by the revenue

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1482/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68

hearing : 13/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 14/02/2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: This group of appeals were filed by the revenue and the cross objections by the different assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai (in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’) passed under section ... appeals have same nature of facts and common issue. Therefore, all the appeals of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are taken together, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.ITA No.1484/Mum/2019&CO No.43/Mum/2021 are taken as lead case. The ground taken by the revenue

M/S. Rhc Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1871/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patawari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, for the reasons as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, we allow the ground in assessee's cross objections in all the three years and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A).” 22. In the light of the findings

DCIT, Central Circle, Aligarh vs. Jai Bankey Bihari Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., Hathras

ITA 41/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

r.w.s. 153A and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. The assessee has also filed cross objection C.O. No. 01/Agr/2023 in ITA No. 41/Agr/2023. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. ITA No. 40/Agr/2023: 3. It emerges during ... pressed. 8. To sum up, the Revenue’s twin appeals ITA No. 40 & 41/Agr/2023 are dismissed and partly allowed, respectively and the assessee’s cross- objection C.O. No. 01/Agr/2023 is dismissed as not pressed, in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files

DCIT, Central Circle, Aligarh vs. Jai Bankey Bihari Perfumers Pvt. Ltd, Hathras

ITA 40/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

r.w.s. 153A and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. The assessee has also filed cross objection C.O. No. 01/Agr/2023 in ITA No. 41/Agr/2023. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. ITA No. 40/Agr/2023: 3. It emerges during ... pressed. 8. To sum up, the Revenue’s twin appeals ITA No. 40 & 41/Agr/2023 are dismissed and partly allowed, respectively and the assessee’s cross- objection C.O. No. 01/Agr/2023 is dismissed as not pressed, in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Jaideep Halwasiya, Kolkata

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

ITA 2284/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Jaideep Halwasiya Acit, Central Circle-4(3) 3Rd Floor, P-34, India Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Exchange Place, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aawph1706L Co No. 50/Kol/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2284/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16) Jaideep Halwasiya Acit, Central Circle-4(3) 3Rd Floor, P-34, India Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Exchange Place, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Guru Bhashyam, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

respect of bogus loss on trading in F&O of ₹ 10,90,25,940/, whereas the assessee by way of cross objection has challenged the impugned assessment year i.e. 2015-16 as falling beyond the period of six assessment years and therefore, claiming the same to be barred by limitation ... First of all, we would adjudicate the ground raised by the assessee in the cross objection which is extracted below:- “1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the search date as 06.02.2019 for computing the period of six years

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai vs. Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5955/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassistant Commissioner Of Vs Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd Income-Tax-3(4), Mumbai 9/3, Lubrizol India Private Limited- 5Th Room No.559, Floor, Plant, Thane Belapur Road, Turbhe Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate Naka, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Thane- Mumbai-400 020 400 705 Pan: Aaacl0126H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla & Shri ShreyasFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 80G

Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved against the appeal order, the revenue filed an appeal and the assessee filed the Cross Objection before us. 4. Related to disallowance of expenses and the additional depreciation claimed under section 32(1)(iia), the Ld. DR fully relied ... prescribed under the section. Accordingly, ground (ii) raised by the revenue is dismissed. 10. As the grounds of the revenue are dismissed, the cross objection of the assessee is infructuous and dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No.5955/Mum/2024 and Cross Objection of the assessee

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell -TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/DEL/2024[2022-23 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153D

assessee) to support the CIT (A)’s order on any ground decided against him, even if the assessee has not filed an appeal or cross- objection. However, this rule is subject to certain judicially recognized limitations, including that it is not for raising wholly new grounds that are unconnected ... beyond those incorporated in the memorandum of appeal though the party urging the said ground had neither appealed before it nor had filed a cross-objection in the appeal filed by the other party. We must however hasten to add that in order to enable either the assessee

DCIT, Firozabad vs. Uma Glass Works, Firozabad

ITA 151/AGR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT, DR

Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These two Revenue's appeals and assessee's Cross Objection involve the same assessee herein, namely M/s Uma Glass Works. All other relevant details thereof are as under: Page 2 ITA No.150 &151/Agr/1019

DCIT, Firozabad vs. Uma Glass Works, Firozabad

ITA 150/AGR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No. 150 & 151/Agr./2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Dcit, Vs. M/S Uma Glass Works Circle-2(2)(1) 22, Industrial Estate, Civil Lines, Dabrai, Nh-2 Firozabad Up 283203 Firozabad – 283205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfu5061D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No.65/Agr./2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14)

For Appellant: Sh. Sahib P Satsangi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT, DR
Section 1

Date of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: These two Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s Cross Objection involve the same assessee herein, namely M/s Uma Glass Works. All other relevant details thereof are as under: P a g e | 2 ITA No.150 ... Revenue’s instant appeal could not be accepted for the very precise reason the same stand rejected therefore. 5. Coming to the assessee’s Cross Objection No. 65/Agr./2019 and Revenue’s latter appeal ITA No.150/Agr./2019 both the learned representatives submit during the course of hearing that they

Sh. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Agra vs. ITO., -Ward-4(4), Agra

ITA 93/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No. 93 /Agr/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Yogesh Chand Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-576, Kamla Nagar, Ward-4(4), Agra Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aekpg8444A Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 02/Agr/2023 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Yogesh Chand Gupta Ward-4(4), B-576 Kamla Nagar Agra Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aekpg8444A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee’ S Appeal I.E. Ita No. 93 /Agr/2016 & Revenue’S Cross Objection Co No. 02/Agr/2023 For A.Y. 2011-12, Arise Against The Cit(A)-2, Agra’S In Case No. 53/Cit(A)-2/Agra/Ito-4(4)/Agra/2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 68

Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: The assessee’ s appeal i.e. ITA No. 93 /Agr/2016 and Revenue’s cross objection CO No. 02/Agr/2023 for A.Y. 2011-12, arise against the CIT(A)-2, Agra’s in case No. 53/CIT(A)-2/Agra/ITO-4(4)/Agra/2014-15 ... followed by necessary computation. This assessee’s appeal i.e. ITA No. 93/Agr/2016 is partly allowed in very terms. 5. So far as Revenue’s cross objection CO No. 2/Agr/2023 is concerned, the same involves tax effect is less than the minimum prescribed limit of Rs.60 lacs as per the CBDT

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, Kadapa

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 670/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.A.Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR and
Section 132Section 56(1)(vii)

Member 3. att. /ITA No.670/Hyd/2022 (Pufturay / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT, Circle-2(1) Vs. | Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Hyderabad Kadapa [PAN : ABEPY9557H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Hyd/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.670/Hyd/2022) (Pufzoray / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. | ACIT, Circle-2(1) Kadapa Hyderabad [PAN : ABEPY9557H] (Appellant ... qaasatarte@ / Date of Hearing: 30/12/2024 ursoratarte / Date of Pronouncement: 12/02/2025 Ril PER. MANJUNATHA G., A.M: /ORDER This appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.09.2022 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2 ITA No.670/Hyd/2022 & CO No.1/Hyd/2023 Y.S.Jagan

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Highlight Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 646/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263Section 68

hearing : 12.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.02.2025 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeal by the revenue and the corresponding Cross Objection by the assessee have been directed against the order dated 21.11.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ... assessee as income of the assessee from unexplained sources u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee, on the other hand, has filed the Cross Objection stating that the base assessment order passed u/s. 147 dated 13.04.2012 was void ab initio on the ground that the Assessing Officer

Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Sh Saurabh Garg, Morena

ITA 362/AGR/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Feb 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 56

first and foremost assessment year is 2004-05 herein involves the Revenue’s appeal No. 362/Agr/2017 in case of Shri SaurabhGarg along with his cross objection C.O. No. 05/Agr/2018 therein. A perusal of the assessment order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Assessing Officer indicates that he had in fact ... material. We, therefore, quash the impugned assessment itself in these facts and circumstances. Thus, . Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 362/Agr/2017 fails and assessee’s cross objection succeeds in very terms. 5. Next comes assessment year 2005-06 involving the Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 26/Agr/2014 and CO No. 03/Agr/2016

A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior vs. M/S K.S.Real Estat Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 52/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 56

first and foremost assessment year is 2004-05 herein involves the Revenue’s appeal No. 362/Agr/2017 in case of Shri SaurabhGarg along with his cross objection C.O. No. 05/Agr/2018 therein. A perusal of the assessment order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Assessing Officer indicates that he had in fact ... material. We, therefore, quash the impugned assessment itself in these facts and circumstances. Thus, . Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 362/Agr/2017 fails and assessee’s cross objection succeeds in very terms. 5. Next comes assessment year 2005-06 involving the Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 26/Agr/2014 and CO No. 03/Agr/2016

A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior vs. Smt. Sheela Devi Garg, Morena

ITA 28/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 56

first and foremost assessment year is 2004-05 herein involves the Revenue’s appeal No. 362/Agr/2017 in case of Shri SaurabhGarg along with his cross objection C.O. No. 05/Agr/2018 therein. A perusal of the assessment order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Assessing Officer indicates that he had in fact ... material. We, therefore, quash the impugned assessment itself in these facts and circumstances. Thus, . Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 362/Agr/2017 fails and assessee’s cross objection succeeds in very terms. 5. Next comes assessment year 2005-06 involving the Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 26/Agr/2014 and CO No. 03/Agr/2016

A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior vs. Smt. Sheela Devi Garg, Morena

ITA 26/AGR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Feb 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 56

first and foremost assessment year is 2004-05 herein involves the Revenue’s appeal No. 362/Agr/2017 in case of Shri SaurabhGarg along with his cross objection C.O. No. 05/Agr/2018 therein. A perusal of the assessment order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Assessing Officer indicates that he had in fact ... material. We, therefore, quash the impugned assessment itself in these facts and circumstances. Thus, . Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 362/Agr/2017 fails and assessee’s cross objection succeeds in very terms. 5. Next comes assessment year 2005-06 involving the Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 26/Agr/2014 and CO No. 03/Agr/2016

M/S Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2369/DEL/2016[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 1999-00

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