← 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- 3(1), Range-1, Lucknow vs. M/S Gautam Buddh Panchsheel Shodh Sahitya Sanskriti Sansthan, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 414/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Respondent: The humble appellant most respectfully submits as under:-
Section 10

assessment year 2017-18 of learned I.T.A. No.414/Lkw/2020 C.O.No.09/Lkw/2021 2 Assessment Year:2017-18 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee. (B) At the time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal filed ... above, I dismiss the appeal of the Revenue for low tax effect. Since the appeal of the revenue has been dismissed, the cross objections filed by the assessee has become infructuous and is dismissed. " 4. That for AY 2017-18 the tax effect is Rs. 45,83,742/- (and interest

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

integra as per learned co-ordinate bench's decision (supra) as under : " 3. It was fairly agreed by the Ld.AR that in the Cross Objection No.56/Mds/2016, the same was in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). It was further submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee

DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

integra as per learned co-ordinate bench's decision (supra) as under : "3. It was fairly agreed by the Ld.AR that in the Cross Objection No.56/Mds/2016, the same was in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). It was further submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Nagercoil vs. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy, Nagercoil

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2893/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2893/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy बनाम/ Ward-1, 3/3B3, Vathiyarvillai, Vs. Nagercoil Nagercoil, Agasteeswaram-629 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Djtpm-5698-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.18/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.2893/Chny/2024) (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy Ito, बनाम/ 3/3B3, Vathiyarvillai, Ward-1, Vs. Nagercoil, Agasteeswaram-629 001. Nagercoil. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Djtpm-5698-P (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri M. Sundar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M. Sundar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Mahalakshmi Ramasamy बनाम/ Ward-1, 3/3B3, Vathiyarvillai, Vs. Nagercoil Nagercoil, Agasteeswaram-629 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. DJTPM-5698-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.18/Chny/2025 (In ITA No.2893/Chny/2024) (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy ITO, बनाम/ 3/3B3, Vathiyarvillai, Ward-1, Vs. Nagercoil, Agasteeswaram ... prove that cash deposits made was from known source of income and the assessee has no taxable income. The assessee has filed cross-objection which is supportive of impugned order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. 2. The assessee

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

ITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 147Section 148Section 44A

None Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 27/01/2025 Date of Order – 05/02/2025 PER K.M. ROY, A.M. ORDER Appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee are emanating from the impugned order dated 12/07/2016, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur, ["learned

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer vs. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1285/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer, C. R. Building – 305 001. ..... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Shailesh Mantri, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254Section 43B

Date of hearing : 22/01/2025 Date of pronouncement : 05/02/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 22.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... being aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) preferred an appeal before us and the assessee approached this bench through the present Cross-Objection (C.O.). 4 Here it is pertinent to mention that the ground taken by the assessee though this C.O. was not there before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Ramakrishna Nukala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 412/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 69ASection 80Section 80I

Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 18/04/2024 and 26/07/2024 for the AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. Further, the assessee, Nukala Ramakrishna, has also filed Cross Objections. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case pertaining to the AY 2017-18 are that Nookala Rama Krishna ("Naga Hanuman Fish Packer", Proprietor

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Shri Ramakrishna Nukala, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 252/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 69ASection 80Section 80I

Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 18/04/2024 and 26/07/2024 for the AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. Further, the assessee, Nukala Ramakrishna, has also filed Cross Objections. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case pertaining to the AY 2017-18 are that Nookala Rama Krishna ("Naga Hanuman Fish Packer”, Proprietor ... Revenue for A.Y. 2017-18 is dismissed. 28. C.O.Nos.05 and 02/Viz/2024 In view of our decision in Revenue’s appeal, the Cross-Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly, the C.O., filed by the assessee are dismissed. 29. In the result, C.O.s, filed by the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Unicorn Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2104/KOL/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

47/Kol/2024 Unicorn Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeal by the Revenue and the corresponding cross objections by the assessee have been directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)], passed ... Revenue has contested the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition on merit, whereas the assessee has filed the cross objections supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search action

Natasha Chopra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2291/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

respectively, challenging the common order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [“CIT(A)”, in short] dated 02/06/2023. The Assessee has also preferred Cross Objections in C.O. No. 107/Del/2023 and 108/Del/2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. 2. Since all the above appeals are arising ... Tribunal. Against the deletion of additions for AY 2014-15 to AY 2017-18, Revenue also preferred the captioned Appeals. Assessee has also filed Cross-Objection for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 by raising several grounds on both legal/technicalities as wells as on the merits. 7. Since identical

Natasha Chopra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2290/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

respectively, challenging the common order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [“CIT(A)”, in short] dated 02/06/2023. The Assessee has also preferred Cross Objections in C.O. No. 107/Del/2023 and 108/Del/2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. 2. Since all the above appeals are arising ... Tribunal. Against the deletion of additions for AY 2014-15 to AY 2017-18, Revenue also preferred the captioned Appeals. Assessee has also filed Cross-Objection for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 by raising several grounds on both legal/technicalities as wells as on the merits. 7. Since identical

Balaram Construction Limited, Banaskantha vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable

ITA 727/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Balaram Construction Ltd. The Pcit 309, 3Rd Floor, Shital-9 Vs Ahmedabad-1 Opp. Bihari Bagh, Palanpur Ahmedabad – 380 015 Banaskantha – 385 001 (Gujarat) (Gujarat) Pan: Aaacb 6264 C

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

that in the facts of the case before the Hon’ble High Court also the assessee had consciously abandoned its right of raising a cross objection initially and had exercised it at a later stage with considerable delay and in the light of these facts, the Hon’ble High Court ... which reads as under: “12. However, what is more material is whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing cross-objection beyond the statutory period of limitation. There is no dispute as to the propositions laid down by the apex court in relation to condonation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Om Prakash Jalan, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 747/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 153CSection 250Section 69A

Date of pronouncing the order : 31.01.2025 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeal has been preferred by the revenue and the corresponding Cross Objections by the assessee against the order dated 12.02.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred ... craves leave to add, alter and delete any of the grounds of appeal during the appellate proceedings.” Whereas the assessee has taken the following cross objections: “1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the legal ground that

DCIT Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5141/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 O R D E R PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the Revenue and corresponding six Cross Objections filed by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai, dated 02.08.2024 passed against the assessment order of DCIT ... referred to as the “Act”) for AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07. Since identical issue on similar facts are involved in these appeals and cross objections, therefore, for sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated by taking ITA No.5141/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2001-02 and Cross Objection No.233/Mum/2024

DCIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5140/MUM/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 O R D E R PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the Revenue and corresponding six Cross Objections filed by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai, dated 02.08.2024 passed against the assessment order of DCIT ... referred to as the “Act”) for AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07. Since identical issue on similar facts are involved in these appeals and cross objections, therefore, for sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated by taking ITA No.5141/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2001-02 and Cross Objection No.233/Mum/2024

DCIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 5123/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora andFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the Revenue and corresponding six Cross Objections filed by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai, dated 02.08.2024 passed against the assessment order of DCIT ... referred to as the “Act”) for AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07. Since identical issue on similar facts are involved in these appeals and cross objections, therefore, for sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated by taking ITA No.5141/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2001-02 and Cross Objection No.233/Mum/2024

DCIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5121/MUM/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 O R D E R PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the Revenue and corresponding six Cross Objections filed by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai, dated 02.08.2024 passed against the assessment order of DCIT ... referred to as the “Act”) for AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07. Since identical issue on similar facts are involved in these appeals and cross objections, therefore, for sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated by taking ITA No.5141/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2001-02 and Cross Objection No.233/Mum/2024

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 5118/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora andFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the Revenue and corresponding six Cross Objections filed by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai, dated 02.08.2024 passed against the assessment order of DCIT ... referred to as the “Act”) for AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07. Since identical issue on similar facts are involved in these appeals and cross objections, therefore, for sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated by taking ITA No.5141/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2001-02 and Cross Objection No.233/Mum/2024

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5117/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora and Ms. Moksha Mehta, ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 O R D E R PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the Revenue and corresponding six Cross Objections filed by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai, dated 02.08.2024 passed against the assessment order of DCIT ... referred to as the “Act”) for AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07. Since identical issue on similar facts are involved in these appeals and cross objections, therefore, for sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated by taking ITA No.5141/Mum/2024 for Assessment Year 2001-02 and Cross Objection No.233/Mum/2024

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2766/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

India and therefore, ITA No.2765 & 2766/Mum/2024 19 A.Y.2016-18 there is no question of setting off of loss from the earlier years. Accordingly, the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is allowed.” 4.7 The Ld.DR on the contrary relied on orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused submissions advanced