“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

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1483/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later : [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject - matter of an appeal ... completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;] (b) ……… (c) In any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sumangla Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals preferred by revenue stands dismissed and the CO of the assessee also stands dismissed

ITA 1482/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Chhotarary (Special Counsel)

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Axis Cades Aerospace Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 777/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

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

Emerson Network Power (India) P.Ltd, Thane vs. Addl CIT RG 1, Thane

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

ITA 1771/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

other income-tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board; (b) empower the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on, or as the case ... aforesaid provisions clearly shows that the CBDT i.e. the Board has the power to empower the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to authorise the Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director to perform

Emerson Network Power (India) P. Ltd, Thane vs. JCIT RG 1, Thane

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

ITA 1975/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Ibm India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 50B

submitted that the stay granted was effective from 24/04/2013 to 04/06/2013. When WP 17293 of 2013 was disposed off, the Chief Commissioner was directed to pass necessary orders. The Chief Commissioner passed the order granting exit from 01/04/2014 and the assessee filed WP 49075 of 2013 against the order ... High Court stayed the operation of the Chief Commissioner's order on 30/10/2013. The assessee also filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court against the reassessment proceedings for the subject AY in WP 42722 of 2013. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court granted interim stay

Pranjali Enterprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ITO-5(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is dismissed being not maintainable

ITA 1523/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 1523/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2017-18) Pranjali Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 53, Anand Bhuvan, Banganga Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006. Pan: Aaecp-7957-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer-5(2)(4), Room No.566, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K.Bagchi

Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 271

section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263 or an order passed by a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General or a Principal Director or Director under section 272A; or (d) an order

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1014/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1014/Mum/2015 Tata Communication Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, (Formerly Videsh Income Tax-1(3) Sanchar Nigan Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv2808C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 35D

issued u/s 148 by an Assessing Officer after the expiry 4 year from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied with reasons recorded by the A.O that it is a fit case for issue

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5185/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 35D

Tata Communicatiosn Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4486/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2003-04

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 35D

Masthi Gowda P, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

will be apt to quote Section 263(1) which is relevant for our purpose:— 263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.—(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

Manjunatha, K R Pet vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

which is relevant for our purpose:— ITA No.364 /Bang/2021 Page 8 of 17 263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.—(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

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

Section 120 and Section 124 of the Act. Under sub-section (1), transfer order under Section 127 can be passed by the Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioners from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer subordinated to them. Sub-section (2) applies where the Assessing Officer to whom ... case is to be transferred is not subordinated to the same Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioners of the Assessing Officer from whom the case is to be transferred. This is not a case of a transfer under Section ITA No. 1484/M/2018 & ITA No. 487/M/2019 31 M/s Vibgyor Texotech

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1291/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 153ASection 153BSection 37Section 68

ready reference:- “132. (1) Where the [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Director or] Director or the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner in consequence of information in his possession ... undisclosed income or property), then,— (A) the [Principal Director General or] Director General or 61[Principal Director or] Director or the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorise any Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director, Joint Commissioner

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1111/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., The Deputy 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Commissioner Of Complex, Income Tax, K H Road, Circle – 1 [1][2], Shanti Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. Pan: Aaacb4881D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & The Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Refusing To Admit The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds That Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate

Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

therefore not taxable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Director General of Income Tax the Appellant Company denies itself liable to be charged to interest under section 234B and section 234D

M/S Moogambigal Charitable and Educational Trust, Bangalore vs. Addldit, Bangalore

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

ITA 1224/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 4A

I.T.Act (`the Act’) vide order dated 16.09.1992. The assessee was also granted approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Banglaore-1, vide order dated 26.03.2009. The assessee filed its return of income on 11.07.2021 for the assessment year under consideration admitting `nil’ income ... wel1 settled position in law that the dominant nature of the purpose for which the trust exists has to be considered. The Chief Commissioner has not doubted the genuineness of the trust or the fact that it is conducting a hospital. Even if the figures which are taken into account

M/S.Vibgyor Texotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

board has issued circulars by notification No. F. No. 400/234/95-IT(B) dated 23.5.1996. As per this circular, it has empowered that the chief commissioner of income tax and director general of income-tax may waive or reduce interest charged u/s.s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in the class

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

functions of an Assessing officer 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 authorized by the Board in this behalf under section ... deemed always to have included] all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the [Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or] Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer

The ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Shelter Housing Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 2936/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 68

case, the Committee was of unanimous opinion that it is a case of High Pitched Assessment. 09. In this regard, the ld. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai gave necessary direction to the concerned ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax for granting a stay on demand along with