“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

Hanuman Agro Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1306/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1306/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Hanuman Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Nicco House 6Th Floor, 2 Hare Street Kolkata, West Bengal-700001 Pan No. :Aaach 6578 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.05.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Assessment Order Of Page 1 Of First Line Wherein The It Is Mentioned That The Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Originally Was Filed On 31.10.2018. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed A Revised Return On 19.03.2019, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,64,350/-. It Was The Submission That The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1(2) Has Passed The Assessment Order. It Was The Submission That The Notice U/S.148 Of The Act In The Impugned Assessment Year Was Issued On 25.03.2025 By The Acit, Circle- 4(1), Kolkata. The Ld.Ar Drew My Attention To The Notice Which Is Shown At Page 9 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows :-

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 148

Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the [Principal Director General or Director General] or the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner]; or where the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different [Principal ... Director General or Director General] or [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief 6 Commissioner] or [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], by the [Principal Director General or Director General] or [Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners] or [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Board

Bishnupur Rowtara Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Nadia vs. ITO, Ward-41(1), Nadia

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

ITA 684/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Roy & Trideep Nayak, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

directly attributable to”. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the case of Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Another [2017] 396 ITR 0371 (AP) in para 34 has discussed about the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... note.” 11. Further, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the case of Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (supra) held that the cooperative society is eligible for deduction

Manish Berlia, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2586/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Sr. DR

Section 120

Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the [Principal Director General or Director General] or the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner]; or where the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different [Principal ... Director General or Director General] or [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner], by the [Principal Director General or Director General] or [Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners] or [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Board

Rattan Jodharam Harchwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5771/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 148

expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year and therefore the approval u/s 151 had to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner. However, in the instant case same had been obtained from the Pr. Commissioner of Income tax. In this regard, attention is invited

Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Principal Director General or Director General or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, or where the question ... relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners, by the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners concerned or, if they

Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3509/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 143(3)Section 194C

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, - 1. the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

Yadiki Pacs, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 926/HYD/2025[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026

Bench: the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above." 3

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 80ASection 80P

Appeals) had failed to appreciate the fact that the Writ Petition filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income

Kalpana Nitin Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7012/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Harshad M. Karnik, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 194Section 271(1)(c)

dated 28/03/2018 are void ab initio as the said notice was issued without obtaining the mandatory prior satisfaction and approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as required by Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and circumstances

National Institute of Construction Management and Research, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exem), Circle - 2, Mumbai

ITA 4324/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

learned CIT(E) also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. New Noble Educational Society Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, in Civil Appeal No. 3795 of 2014, and held that in the aforesaid decision, it has been reaffirmed that the entities claiming

Rakesh Divedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3290/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalrakesh Divedi, Income Tax Officer, 87, Triveni Apartments, Ward-43(6), Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi - Vs. 110034. Pan-Apcpd9179A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Assessee By & Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 07.03.2025 In Appeal No.40/10204/2018-19 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(3) U/S 143(3) Of The Act (‘The Act’ For Short) Dated 20.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Triambkay Gauri Impex. The Information Was Received By The Ao From Investigation Wing That There Were Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assesse With Icici Bank, However, Income Of The Assessee & Gross Receipt Has Not Rakesh Divedi Vs. Income Tax Officer Commensurate With The Cash So Deposited, Therefore, After Recording The Reason U/S 147, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 31.03.2016 After Obtaining Statutory Approval From The Pcit. Thereafter, Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 20.12.2016 Wherein Total Addition Of Rs. 5,20,88,345/- Was Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Cash Deposited In The Bank Accounts By Holding The Same As Unexplained Cash Credits. 3. Against The Said Order, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Directed The Ao To Make Addition Of Peak Credit Of The Total Deposits In The Bank Accounts.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

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 ... case for the issue of such notice. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the g Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2954/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

lands were acquired under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and a award was passed on 2-12- 1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi granting compensation favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by the judgment dated 20-5-1980 held t appellant entitled to 1/32

Best Bull Stock Trading Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-18, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2953/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153(6)Section 153A

Sanjay Champalal Jaiswal, Nanded-Waghala vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nanded-Waghala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2136/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2136/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Champalal Jaiswal, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post, Hadsani, Mahur, S Ward-1, Nanded. Tq.Mahur, Nanded-Waghala, Maharashtra - 431721. Pan: Awlpj7783Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Govind Prasad Mandala (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 18.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69A

been obtained from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas after the lapse of three years from the end of assessment year, approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax was required. Therefore, on both these grounds, the notice u/s.148 is bad in law. ITA No.2136/PUN/2025 [A] 5. On identical ... notice was issued on 25.07.2022, which is beyond the period of three years. So admittedly, the approval has to be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General as defined under Section 151(ii). But, in the present case, the approval

Sterling Court F Wing Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7122/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Deductions in respect of certain incomes”. It is further clarified in the said Circular that for AYs 2018-19 to 2022-23, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Director General of Income Tax are directed to admit all pending as well as new application for condonation of delay

Sterling Court F Wing Co -Op. Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7121/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &

For Appellant: ITA Nos. 7121, 7120 &

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Sterling Court F Wing Co Op Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7120/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &

For Appellant: ITA Nos. 7121, 7120 &

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Balguri Rajeshwar Rao, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward- 11(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1728/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1728/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: T Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

issue notice u/s. 148 of IT Act, 1961. 7. This order is passed with prior approval of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, AP & TS, Hyderabad. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT PAOKHOLEN MISAO WARD 11(1), HYDERABAD/ INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE

Primary Agricultural Co Op Credit Society Limited Minarpally, Minarpally Village vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nizamabad

ITA 140/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.140/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Primary Agricultural Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit Society Ward 1 Ltd Minarpally, Minarpally Minarpally, Nizamabad Pan:Aabap7760J (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: C.A Akshay Surana राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Smt. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd Minarpally (“The Assessee"), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05.11.2024 For The A.Y, 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Page 1 Of 18

For Appellant: C.A Akshay Surana

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17. 7. The order is passed with the prior approval of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh & Telangana. 9. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the order under section 148A

Rajroop Doshi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 127(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

provisions of section 127 of the Act as under: Power to transfer cases (1) The [Principal Director General or] Director General or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after

S.D Education Society, Karnal vs. ACIT Circle, Karnal

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5224/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Girish Aneja, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Board Circular. Hon’ble High Court in the assessee’s case, i.e., CWP No.10104 of 2011 titled as M/s S.D. Education Society, Karnal vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula in order dated 27.11.2015 has ordered for passing fresh orders as per law, after considering the judgement dated ... profit making. It is entitled to exemption in terms of Section 10(23C)(vi) from levy of Income Tax. It filed application before Chief Commissioner Income Tax seeking exemption who vide impugned orders rejected the same. 4. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that Hon’ble Supreme Court