“Chief Commissioner”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(15A) / Section 1172,876 judgments

The decision most relied on for Chief Commissioner is Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 296), cited in 98 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Chief Commissioner

Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT

93 Taxmann.com 296 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Approval granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner under Section 151 for reassessment proceedings under Section 148 must reflect due application of mind. A mere endorsement of "approved" without reasons or reference to material is insufficient, as the approval serves as a safeguard and must be meaningful, not ritualistic or formal.

Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

457 ITR 647 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

The amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, governing the sanction for reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A, applies to cases initiated under the new reassessment regime. The specified authority for granting such sanction becomes the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT

346 ITR 443 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

The reassessment proceedings are invalid if the required sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act is not obtained from the statutorily designated authority or if the approval is granted mechanically without due satisfaction. Approval by a higher authority cannot substitute the satisfaction of the authority specified in Section 151.

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner

1 SCC 405 · 1978 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

When a statutory authority issues an order based on specific grounds, its validity must be assessed solely by those stated grounds and cannot be supported or improved by additional reasons provided later in affidavits or other means. An order that is invalid at its inception cannot be validated by subsequent justifications.

Sahara India v. CIT & Others

216 CTR 303 · 2008 · Reported

citing judgments

The requirement of prior approval from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner under Section 142(2A) is a crucial safeguard against arbitrary assessment, placing a significant responsibility on the approving authority to ensure its genuine application and prevent it from becoming a mere formality.

New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

448 ITR 594 · 2022 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An institution qualifies as an 'educational institution' for tax exemption, including under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), only if it imparts structured, formal education, distinguishing it from general public utility activities under Section 2(15).

Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise

280 ITR 321 · 2006 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that while the Legislature can enact laws retrospectively, this power does not normally extend to creating an offence or penal liability retroactively, nor to withdrawing a benefit already granted under a statute through retrospective amendment.

Oxford Academy for Career Development v. Chief CIT

315 ITR 382 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) has no power to cancel registration granted under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act retrospectively, especially when there is no express provision in the Act for such cancellation and the order is quasi-judicial in nature.

Judgments citing Chief Commissioner

Mafatbhai Bhikhabhai Parmar, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 463/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this ... deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

Piem Hotels Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4407/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244Section 244ASection 250

period for which interest is payable, and where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner whose decision thereon shall be final. (3) Where, as a result of an order under sub-section (3) of section 115WE

Sh. Baljit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT, Ludhiana -1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

Commissioner. The heading deals with broad caption “ Revision of order and prejudicial to Revenue”. By virtue of Section 263 (1) The PCIT or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceedings under this Act and if he considers that any order ... passing the fresh order in accordance with law. ii) Reliance on section 263 which is as below is placed. 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1988/MUM/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall communicate the order passed by him to the assessee and to the 16 Chief Commissioner or Commissioner]. 13.5. Principles governing the exercise of powers by the First Appellate Authority are contemplated under sections 250 and 251 of the Act, breach of which

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1987/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Parinee Housing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3408/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 185

Principal Director or Commissioner or Director and if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, then Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. In the instant case, the notice under section 148 along with order passed under ... years which has lapsed on 31/03/2021. Accordingly, the approval as contemplated in Section 151(ii) of the Act have to be obtained by Pr. Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General of Chief Commissioner or Director General and here in this case the approval has been taken

Parinee Housing Private Limited, Vile Parle West vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - Cental Circle 2(4), Mumbai, New Marine Lines, Churchgate

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

ITA 2884/MUM/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 185

Daridra Narayan Sewa Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 652/JPR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta CA &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(230)Section 12ASection 80G

here concerned whether in the absence of any statutory provision to condone the delay in presenting the application under section 10/230)(V), the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax can exercise any such power 7. The adjudicating authorities under the Income-tax Act are quasi-judicial authorities They can grant approval

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, - a) The order is passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made" 5.1 Hon'ble Delhi High

Picasa Facility Management, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 103/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2015-16 Picasa Facility Management Vs. Acit, C/O D D Nagpal, Central Circle-2, Chartered Accountant, New Delhi. Gh Gopala Tower, 25, Rajendra Place New Delhi – 110 008 Pan Aamfp00803A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.S. Kochar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Mayuri, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

from the end of relevant assessment year the sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 was neither sought nor obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax who were the only authorities competent to grant approval as per provisions ... expired from the end of the relevant assessment year as provided under section 151(1) of the Act, it is only the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner who could have accorded the approval and not the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. On this ground

Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University Alwar, Alwar vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Alwar

ITA 568/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2024

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. PooniaFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

here concerned whether in the absence of any statutory provision to condone the delay in presenting the application under section 10(23C)(vi) the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax can exercise any such power". 7. The adjudicating authorities under the Income-tax Act are quasi judicial authorities. They can grant

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1712/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)

lacs found and seized from its locker room by CBI. It is very strange to understand as to how a senior level officer like Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) had accorded his authorization u/s 253(2) of the Act to file appeal before this Tribunal in the instant case

Shri Girishkumar Ramnarayan Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, TDS-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 340/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR

Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 206C(7)

trading purposes. (1B) The person responsible for collecting tax under this Section shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner one copy of the declaration referred to in sub-Section (1A) on or before the seventh

Siemens Technology and Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Siemens Technology & Services Dy. Cit 8(2)(1) Private Limited Mumbai Plot No. 2, Sector 2, Kharghar, Vs. Node, Navi Mumbai- 410 210

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 3Section 92C

expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed ... Principal Commissioner or Commissioner:Provided that where the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250

where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the 3 [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or 4 [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] whose decision thereon shall be final. (3) Where, as a result of an order under sub-section (3) of section

DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Mdlr Airlines P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1719/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2007-08 A.Y. 2008-09

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 264

interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section ... this section also the AO may direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an Accountant with the previous approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. This provision has been elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India