“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

Rajeswara Rao Anne, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Phaneendra Nag, CA

Section 11ISection 132Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271ASection 274

account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly

Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 917/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs4024Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92C

month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Chief ... Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. Provided that where it is not possible for the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] to give effect to such order within the aforesaid period, for reasons beyond his control

Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 711/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Pin – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahcs9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Shweta Gaday, Bidar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bidar

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

ITA 2314/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case. .2. The sanction for issuing a notice under Section 148 must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner is not the competent authority on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page ... 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 Page 7 of 9 is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that

Niraj, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(1), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 3308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Niraj Vs. Ito H.No.30, Satvara Debai Ward- 2 (3) (1) Bulandshahr 202392 Delhi Pan No.Apdpn7627J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Subhash Singhal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 292

since beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the AO needs prior sanction from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) and not from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The Ld. Counsel, therefore, submitted that since the notice u/s.148 dated ... year and, therefore, as per the provisions of sub clause (ii) of Section 151 of the Act, AO shall take prior approval from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income (PCCIT) for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. However, in the case of the assessee since the AO obtained approval from

Karan Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 310/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

case of Sahara India vs. CIT and Others (2008) 300 JTR 403 (SC) where the discussion on the requirement of prior approval of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of provision of Section 142(2A) of the Act had been made, it was noted that the Apex Court has held ... therein that the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an in-built protection against arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see that

Karishma Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 309/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Karishma Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 308/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Reshmi Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 307/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Reshmi Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 306/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

Anil Kumar, Una vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Una

ITA 121/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am M.A. No. 121/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No.25/Chandi/2022] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-1, M/S Oswal Apparels Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-9177-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Gaurav Sharma (Ca) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) Sr. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 254(2)

Order dated 04.11.2024 on 07.04.2025, and the orders were 2 M.A. NO. 121/2025 M/s OswalApparls Pvt. Ltd. received in the office of the Principal Chief Commissioner on 15.07.2025, and thereafter the present Misc. Application has been filed by the revenue. The Ld. DR, relied upon the decision the Bombay High

Essen Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 9(1) Essen Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 101/1/2/1, B.T. Road, Bonhoogly, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700090, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5871A Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 29.07.2025 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Counsel Of The Assessee Pressed Ground No.4, Which Is In Respect Of Reopening Of Assessment Not Being In Accordance With Law & Therefore, The Entire Reassessment Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)

Section 148 by the Assessing Officer, after expiry of period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case

Blackstone Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2027/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151

invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT"). 2. Petitioner's request for a copy of the sanction has also been denied. Even in the affidavit in reply, the Department

M/S. Blackstone Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2026/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151

R 249 Kulithalai Co-Op Pard Bank Limited, Karur vs. Income Tax Officer, Karur

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

ITA 2543/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Audit Report. The appellant has submitted that a petition for condonation of delay in filing the return was submitted before the Honourable Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 13/2023 in F.No.173/21/2023-ITA-I, dated 26.07.2023 The appellant has submitted that application for condonation of delay ... pending before the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy till date. As per explicit provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Act, JCIT(Appeals) does not have any power to adjudicate on such issues of disallowances due to delayed filing. Assessee has rightly approached office of CCIT - Madurai

Harinder Bir Singh Lamba, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 52(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4480/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4480/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Harinder Bir Singh Lamba, Dcit, H.No.2/57, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. Circle 52(1), Civic Centre, Punjabi Bagh, Shivaji Park, New Delhi. West Delhi, Shivaji Park, S.O. (West Delhi), Delhi, India. Pan No.Aacpl9638D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 250Section 28Section 69A

submission by the Ld. AR that the approval was given by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income tax as per section 151(ii) of the Act. The Ld. AR read out from his submissions, which for the sake ... portions of the two sections are reproduced hereunder: - ………………………. S.151 Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be – ……….. (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment

Kilaru Venkata Satish, Krishna Dist vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 933/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us), Which Reads As Under:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

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 ... relevant assessment year, then, approval for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act has to be taken from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act is supported by the recent judgment

Laxmi Venkata Krishna Rice Corporation, Nalgonda vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1700/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69A

148A(b), the order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148 were issued with the approval of Principal CIT and not by the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax or the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax" 3 Laxmi Venkata Krishna Rice Corporation vs. ITO 3. As the assessee ... 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

Shivi Mukesh Kumar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5293/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshivi Mukesh Kumar Acit, Circle 22(1) D-1402, Hubtown Seasons, Mumbai Next To Fine Arts Society, Vs. Ramakrishna Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No. Aqapk 9881 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate & Ms. Vinita A. Nara – Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Specifically Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 6, Which Reads As Under: 6. The Sanction U/S. 151 Is Bad In Law & As A Result, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. Referring To This Ground, Ld. Counsel Submitted, At The Very Outset, This Issue May Be Considered And, If Warranted The Other Issues Can Be Taken Up Thereafter. As Could Be Seen

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 35(1)(ii)

expiry of more than three years from the end of the assessment year, however, it was not issued with the prior sanction of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCCIT’ for short) in terms with section 151(ii) of the Act. Drawing our attention to the copy of the said ... relevant assessment year, the specified authority who can grant sanction in terms of section 151(ii) of the Act is the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. 9. In the facts of the present appeal, admittedly, prior sanction of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained for issuance of notice

Flamingo Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Sion Trombay Road Chembur vs. DCIT Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr.DR)

Section 143(3)Section 35

prescribed. (4) The prescribed authority shall submit its report in relation to the approval of the said facility to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General in such form and within such time as may be prescribed. (5) [***] (6) No deduction shall