← 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

Ajay Kumar Gupta, Panipat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 1Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 263Section 69C

have noted the following statutory prescription of section 263, which is currently in dispute. “….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 ... 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

Shri Brahmanath Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nippani vs. ITO 1 Nippani, Nippani

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

ITA 66/PAN/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.66/Pan/2026 (A.Y. 2013-14 ) Shri Brahmanath Credit Vs I.T.O-Ward-1, Souhard Sahakari Sangh Nemchand Building, . Niyamat, 747,Ashoknagar, 185/C, Chikodi Road, Nippani-591237, Nippani, Karnataka. Belagavi-591237, Karnataka. Pan .No. Aaaas1063Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.U.G.Ammangi.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of Nfac/Cit(A) U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Denial Of Deduction Of Interest Income From Cooperative Society, Cooperative Banks & Nationalized Banks U/Sec80P(2)(D) Of The Act. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Is Engaged In Activities Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2013-14 On 2 Ita. No..66/Pan/2026 Shri Brahmanath Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit. 30.09.2013 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.Nil After Claiming Deduction Of Rs.78,06,780/- U/Sec 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Order U/Sec143(3) Of The Act Was Passed Disallowing The Claim U/Sec80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act Of Rs.78,06,780/- & Disallowance U/Sec40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Of Rs.76,274/- & Assessed The Total Income Of Rs.78,83,054/- Vide Order Dated21.07.2021.Aggrived By The Order, On Appeal To The Cit(A), The Appeal Was Partly Allowed & The Assessee Has Preferred Second Appeal Before The Honble Tribunal & Vide By Order

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd v ITO Ward 2(2), Mysore 377 ITR 464 (Kar) . 4. Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd v Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 396 ITR 371 (A.P and Telangana). 5. Pr.CIT v Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd 166 taxmann.com 445 (Ker). 6. Pr.CIT

Shri Gandhi Maulana Azad Shramjivi Ashra, Kutch vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners ... Principal Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable

Shri Gandhi Maulana Azad Shramjivi Ashra, Kutch vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners ... Principal Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable

Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya, Surat vs. Assessment Unit ITO Jurisdictional A O Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 859/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.859/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya Assessment Unit Ito बनाम B-76 Ramkrishna Society Jurisdictional Ao / L.H. Road Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Varachha Surat – 395 006 Ito Ward-3(3) Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Blppm 3876 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 25/03/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time-Barred By 79 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya Vs.Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

beyond period of three years and as per provisions of amended section 151 of the Act approval was required to be taken from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income Tax and not from Principal Commissioner of Income

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

said Section reads as follows: “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

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

said Section reads as follows: “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

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

said Section reads as follows: “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

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

said Section reads as follows: “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

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

said Section reads as follows: “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

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

said Section reads as follows: “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

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

said Section reads as follows: “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

Jothi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

said Section reads as follows: “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

Kalpana Sanjay Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-41(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 9047/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Tribunal challenging the validity of the re-assessment proceedings raising, inter alia, the following grounds: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-1, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 1Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

TOLA1 till 30th June, 2021 has expired. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain approval of the higher authority (i.e. the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax) under Section 151(ii) of the Act before passing the Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act (New Regime) and before ... Year 2017-2018 after 30th June, 2021, whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151(i) of the Act or the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151(ii) of the Act is the Specified Authority for seeking necessary approval. 7. In our view, the above

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 9046/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

TOLA1 till 30th June, 2021 has expired. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain approval of the higher authority (i.e. the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax) under Section 151(ii) of the Act before passing the Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act (New Regime) and before ... Year 2017-2018 after 30th June, 2021, whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151(i) of the Act or the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151(ii) of the Act is the Specified Authority for seeking necessary approval. 7. In our view, the above

ITO 19 1 5 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Johratussharaf Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9040/MUM/2025[AMRPS6217J]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2017-18 Ito – 19(1)(5) Vs. Johratussharf Syedna 502, Piramal Chembers Mufaddal Saifuddin Lalbaug, Mumbai – Saifee Mahal, Ag Bell 400012. Marg, Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Amrps6217J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

relevant assessment year, the approval for issuance of notice under section 148 is required to be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The learned AR submitted that in the present case the approval has been obtained from the Principal Commissioner ... more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval is required to be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. 7 Johratussharaf Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, Mumbai 12. Thus, the approval obtained in the present case

Shree Sai Hospitality, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Mumbai, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9019/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2018-19 Shree Sai Hospitality Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1) C/32, Harias Dream Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Park, Mira Bhayander Road No. 16Z, Wagle Road, Mira Road (E), Industraial Estate, Thane – Mira-Bhayandar – 400604. 401107. Pan/Gir No. Acyfs5492G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

section 151(ii) of the Act, the approval for issuance of notice under section 148 ought to have been granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) or the specified higher authority, and not by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). 9. According to the learned Authorised ... Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three

Shri Mallikarjun Urban Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. ITO Ward 1 Belgaum, Belgaum

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

ITA 65/PAN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Guttigedarara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd v ITO Ward 2(2), Mysore 377 ITR 464 (Kar) . 4. Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd v Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 396 ITR 371 (A.P and Telangana). 5. Pr.CIT v Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd 166 taxmann.com 445 (Ker). 6. Pr.CIT

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

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

Jayesh Kanungo HUF, Khetwadi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6855/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Bijayananda Prusethjayesh Kanungo Huf Ito -19(2)(1), Mumbai 203, Rajgiri Apartment, A Wing, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 13Thkhetwadi Back Road, Mumbai Parel Mumbai 400012 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabhj8492E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar Singh a/w. Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri. Nakul Agrawal Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

assessee vests with the ITO, Ward 19(2)(1), Mumbai. In support of this contention, the jurisdiction list issued by the Learned Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Region, was placed on record and is annexed at APB pages 79 to 83. It was further submitted that the reasons ... said notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, also recorded that the necessary satisfaction of the Additional Commissioner /Commissioner of Income Tax / Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained before issue of notice. 5. The appellant filed the objections challenging the issue of notice