← All Phrases

“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
98
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
95
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
89
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
79
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
54
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
50
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
47
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
37
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

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 148/RPR/2023[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later : Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order ... within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later; (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 146/RPR/2023[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later : Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order ... within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later; (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject

Santosh Jain, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 144/RPR/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Sept 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later : Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order ... within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later; (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject

Amadoroco Ltd, Cyprus vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1007/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Sh. Amit Sharma, Sumit JainFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Prafulla Shashikant Vaidya, Thane vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 271Section 271ASection 274

documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or 7 Shri Prafulla Shashikant Vaidya (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry

Breach Candy Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E) - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1719/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhbreach Candy Hospital Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust, 60A, Bhulabhai Exemption Ward (1)(1) Desai Road, Cumballa Hill 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal S.O, Mumbai – 400026 Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatb0214D Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Shri Fenil Bhat Respondent By : S. Srinivasu Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 21.03.2023 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(Via) 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Denying The Claim Of The Appellant For Grant Of Exemption Under Section 10(23Cx(Via) Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Following The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Bombay High Court To Grant Exemption Under Section 10(23Cxvia) Pursuant To Ad-Interim Relief Granted To The Appellant Vide Order Dated 17 January 2011. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Followed Directions Of Hon'Ble Bombay High Court. Provision For Gratuity To Be Treated As ‘Application Of Income’

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhatFor Respondent: S. Srinivasu
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

assessee was initially granted approval for assessment year 1999 to 2000 to 2001 -02 by the CBDT vide order dated 10.04.2003. Thereafter the Chief Commissioner vide consolidated order dated 30.03.2009 for assessment year 2002-03 to 2010-11 had rejected the renewable application of the assessee. Thereafter the assesse filed

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 947/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(5)Section 244ASection 250Section 254Section 260Section 262Section 263Section 264

Union Bank of India which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 946/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(5)Section 244ASection 250Section 254Section 260Section 262Section 263Section 264

Union Bank of India which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed

Dcti-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 945/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(5)Section 244ASection 250Section 254Section 260Section 262Section 263Section 264

Union Bank of India which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed

Shri Mayur Bansal, Gwalior vs. The DCIT, Central, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)ANo

ITA 81/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 119Section 153ASection 156

shall state the fact that the communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief Commissioner/ Director General of Income-tax for issue of manual communication in the following format- ” .. This communication issues manually without a DIN on account ... should mention the fact that the communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief Commissioner/ Director General of Income-tax for issue of manual communication in a specific format. Para 4 of the circular states that the communication issued

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

interest of revenue. Section 263 of the Act has been reproduced as under: “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 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 ... 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

Shri Ishak, Indore vs. The ITO 5(4), Indore

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

ITA 13/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ishak Ito 5(4) Kasturbagram S.O. Mundla Indore Vs. Nayata, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akxpi 6044 D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

Section 144Section 147Section 154

shall state the fact that the communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief Commissioner/ Director General of Income-tax for issue of manual communication in the following format- ” .. This communication issues manually without a DIN on account ... should mention the fact that the communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief Commissioner/ Director General of Income-tax for issue of manual communication in a specific format. Para 4 of the circular states that the communication issued

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if in the opinion 26 Career Point Limited, Kota. of the Principal [Chief Commission or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner: - (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing

Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra, Padampua vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Kailash Heights

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) "record shall include and shall be deemed always

Institute Management Committee of Iti, Narayanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ememption-I, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations hereinabove

ITA 27/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Institute Management Committee, The Income Tax Officer- Women Iti, Narayanpur, (Exemption-1), Chhattisgarh-494 661. Ayakar Awasiya Parisar, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492 001. [Pan: Aaati 8583 L ] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.Dr : सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

clause (ii) shall he passed unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (IA) All applications, pending before the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner on which no order has been passed under clause (b) of sub-section (I) before the 1st day of June

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

decision of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vavveru Co- operative Rural Bank Ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (2017) 88 taxmann.com 728 (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana) dated 15.03.2017 wherein held that the co-operative society may claim the benefit of clause

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

decision of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vavveru Co- operative Rural Bank Ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (2017) 88 taxmann.com 728 (Andhra Pradesh & Telangana) dated 15.03.2017 wherein held that the co-operative society may claim the benefit of clause

The Amravati People Co-Op Bank Ltd ( Now Merged in the Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd), Amaravati vs. D.C.I.T. Amravati Circle, Amaravati

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 308/NAG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 80P

that after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no notice u/s 148 shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO. The present case of the appellant does not fall under sub-section

Shri Babulal Miyaram Gadri, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, TDS-3, Jamnagar

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

ITA 54/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 206C(7)

from whom the assessee already received declaration in Form 27C on the ground that such declaration was not furnished by the assessee to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as required by the provisions of section 206C(1B) of the Act. 13. In the case of Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin