← 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

Kamla Park Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2009-10,

ITA 1616/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1616 To 1618 & 1620 To 1621/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Kamla Park Developers बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk7627G (अपीलधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 07.01.2019 For A.Y. 2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Kamla Park Developers 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee wherein the emphasis was given

Kamla Landmarc Estate, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4) Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1608/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. Nos.1608 & 1612/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2012-13) Kamlalandmarc Estate बनाम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk1567A (अपीलधथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Shri Rashmikant Modi Assessee By: Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोर्णधकीतधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 07-01-2019 For A.Ys. 2008- 09 & Ay. 2012-13. Since Issues Involved Are Common, Both These Appeals For The Two Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose These Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37Section 68

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee wherein the emphasis was given

Kamlashri Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 1384/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee proceedings. No doubt, the Ld. DR placed

Kamlashri Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 1383/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee proceedings. No doubt, the Ld. DR placed

Kamlashri Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 1382/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee proceedings. No doubt, the Ld. DR placed

Kamlashri Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 1381/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee proceedings. No doubt, the Ld. DR placed

Kamlashri Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 1380/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee proceedings. No doubt, the Ld. DR placed

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1286/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee wherein the emphasis was given

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1285/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee wherein the emphasis was given

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1284/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee wherein the emphasis was given

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Cirle-(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1283/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee wherein the emphasis was given

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1282/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee wherein the emphasis was given

Kamla Ankur Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1281/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee wherein the emphasis was given

Kamla Ankur, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 1280/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.1280 To 1286/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamla Ankur Venture बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk4902H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.12.2018 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay. 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

statement recorded.” 16. We also took into notice of the CBDT Circular F No. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 addressed to all the Chief Commissioners of income Tax (Cadre Contra) and Directors Generals of Income Inv, relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee wherein the emphasis was given

M/S. Karthik Estate, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153DSection 263

Explanation (2) to section 263 of the Act, which read 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 that ... erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— Page 8 of 19 (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been

Mr. Deepak Vishnu Raut- General Manager Shri Murli Manohar Nagari Sahakari Patasanth Maryadit, Mahad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-PCIT-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:-

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

Manohar Nagari Sahakari Patasantha Maryadit 9. With reference to audit objection raised by the Internal Audit Party in various cases, directions were sought from Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT), Pune. The CCIT Pune vide letter dated 3.3.2022 directed the PCIT to take necessary remedial action

Anup Enterprises, Mumbai vs. The Principal CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1641/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 3

reproducing herein-below the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act: “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 that ... case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 347/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[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; (b) the order

Terrier Security Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 346/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal 95[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; (b) the order

M/S. Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax, Circle 13(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1865/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

where any question arises about the period to be excluded (for which interest is to be declined), it shall be decided by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whose decision thereon shall be final”. Clearly, therefore, final call about the period to be excluded ... period for which such interest under section 244A is to be excluded, this is to be decided by the Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner. The law is quite unambiguous on this aspect as it provides that "where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall