“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

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

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

ITA 5223/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

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

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Munjal Holdings, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5834/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

amended section 151(ii) of the Act, same should be issued with the prior ACIT Vs. Munjal Holdings approval of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General and not the Principal Commissioner of Income ... four years Joint Commissioner old regime from the end of relevant assessment year Section 151(1) of After expiry of four years Principal Chief Commissioner or old regime from the end of relevant Chief Commissioner or Principal assessment year Commissioner or Commissioner ACIT Vs. Munjal Holdings Section

ACIT Circle-1, Dhanbad vs. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad

ITA 302/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 300Section 32(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राँची न्यायपीठ, राँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM

ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad vs. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 2 12 & 2012-13, respectively. The assessee has also filed cross objections arising out of

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

ITA 293/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (Α.Υ :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राँची न्यायपीठ, राँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM

The Nanawan Co-Operative Agriculture Society, Hamirpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Hamirpur

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 953/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Krishan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 119Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

cases referred to in para 3, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby directs that the Chief Commissioners of Income· tax (CCsIT) / Directors General of lncome tax (DGsIT) are authorised to deal with such applications of condonation of delay pending before

The Swahalwa Co-Operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., Distt. Hamirpur vs. ITO, Ward Hamipur, Hamirpur

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 886/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: us.3. I find that the appropriate course of action for the assessee, on the facts of such cases, lies in CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2023 dated 26-07-2023 (F.No.173/2112023-IT A-I) which read as under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 119Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Income Tax Officer, Dhule vs. Santosh Jaynarayan Sharma, Dhule

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2324/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2324/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay DhivareFor Respondent: Shri Chinmayy Suhas

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

lakh and the notice u/s.148A(d) has been issued after three years and therefore the approval ought to have been taken from the Principal Chief Commissioner but the Assessing Officer while issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 26.07.2022 has taken approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax which ... income is less than ₹50.00 lakh and notice has been issued after three years, ld. Assessing Officer ought to have taken approval from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in place of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. We observe that similar issue came for adjudication before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

Naval Seth L/H Late Sh. Ghansham Dass Seth, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-28(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6210/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under ... Seth vs ACIT Circle -28(1) Director or Commissioner or Director, and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing

Jeevan Rekha Trust, Dhanbad vs. CIT, Exemption, Patna

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 24/RAN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 194JSection 80Section 80G

placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. New Noble Educational Society, v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1 [Civil appeal no. 3795 of 2014 dated October 19, 2022]. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. The facts in present case ... clearly shows that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. New Noble Educational Society, v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1 [Civil appeal no. 3795 of 2014 dated October 19, 2022], has laid down the principle in regard to educational institution claiming exemption u/s.10

Jeevan Rekha Trust, Dhanbad vs. CIT Exemption, Patna

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 23/RAN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 194JSection 80Section 80G

Kadalaikattupudur Pacs, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 2596/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. AnItha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act. It was further submitted that the assessee has already moved an application before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT), Coimbatore u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the return, and the said petition

Marks and Spencer (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1937/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

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

required to be made in a faceless manner as per the procedure stipulated in the said section. 14. However, in scenario where the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/ Principal Director General of Income Tax in charge of NFAC, if considered necessary may transfer the case to Jurisdictional Assessing Officer

M/S. Bms Sales Pvt. Ltd., Purulia vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

filing affidavits before the Metropolitan Magistrate 12.4. Even the CBDT Letter No.286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated Oct 3, 2003 in this respect read as under: The Chief Commissioners of Income Tax, (Cadre Contra) & All Directors General of Income Tax Inv. Sir, Subject: Confession of additional Income during the course of search & seizure

Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur vs. Kanha Grain Process, Raipur

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

ITA 260/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward 1(2), Raipur Kanha Grain Process Vs. Station Road, Tilda Neora, Raipur – 493114 Pan: Aaifk3222G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

when issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 23.07.2022 was valid, as it was issued after obtaining the approval of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in compliance with the Supreme Court's order dated 04.05.2022 in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal

Kamlesh Kukreja, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 119/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamlesh Kukreja Ito, Ward-1(1), Raipur Prop. Anmol Industries, Vs. Surajpura Road, Bhatapara, Raipur – 493118 Ahvpk6618C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 69C

dated 27.07.2022. Referring to the provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act, he submitted that the proper sanctioning authority is Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Pr.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, in the instant case the Assessing Officer has obtained the approval from the PCIT, therefore, such approval ... terms of section 151(i) from Principal Commissioner, since amount involved was more than Rs.50 lakhs, approval had to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner as per section 151(ii) and, thus, initiation of proceedings itself was without any jurisdiction. 14. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3048/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : : 16.12.2025 : 01.01.2026 These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3047/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

since notice has been issued on 01.04.2021 which is beyond three years, sanction for issue of such notice has to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner as per the amended law as on 01.04.2021, since the AO had obtained the approval from Range Head instead of PCCIT, the impugned notice

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3046/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Medical Educational & Cultural Development Society, Kanpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Kanpur

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

delay in filing the Audit Report in Form 10B since the issue of condonation of delay was now pending before the Ld. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi on the applications having been transferred to him by the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow. 6.0 Per contra ... Exemption) for assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, all dated 14.10.2024, but the same are pending consideration before the Ld. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. Considering the request of the assessee, we set aside the orders of the Addl/JCIT(A), Mysore and restore