← 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

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

also subordinate to him. Likewise, under sub-section (2) of Section 127 after following similar procedural requirements, it is open for the Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to transfer a case from one Assessing Officer to another who is not subordinate to him in agreement with the authority

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 505/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

also subordinate to him. Likewise, under sub-section (2) of Section 127 after following similar procedural requirements, it is open for the Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to transfer a case from one Assessing Officer to another who is not subordinate to him in agreement with the authority

Scholars Education Trust of India, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 153(5)Section 2(41)

section 10 of the Income Tax Act,1961 read with Rule 2CA of Income Tax Rule, 1962, which was accorded by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur vide Notification No. 20/10-11 dated27.12.2010 is hereby withdrawn from the AY 2013-14 onwards. The Assessing Officer is therefore take necessary action

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana Punjab vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Ludhiana

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 596/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.530/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jcit (In Situ) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Ludhiana – 141001 Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.596/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) A/W Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) a/w Dr
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

falls beyond three years. In such a case, clause (ii) of Section 151 of the Act would apply which mandate sanction of either Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General for issuance

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ) Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 530/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.530/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jcit (In Situ) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Ludhiana – 141001 Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.596/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) A/W Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) a/w Dr
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

falls beyond three years. In such a case, clause (ii) of Section 151 of the Act would apply which mandate sanction of either Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General for issuance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

Accordingly the ground No. 2 is dismissed by upholding the order of Ld

ITA 1439/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 4(3) Avima Exports Private Limited 4Th Ns Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata, 110, Shantipally, Vs. Kolkata-700107, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca5857N Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

time of search/survey should be considered adversely. 18. The said CBDT Letter No.286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated Oct 3, 2003 read as under: “To 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 17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Amritlal Nayak, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 3484/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Hakani, AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 68

years and therefore as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Act the AO should have obtained the approval from Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT). The ld AR further submitted that in the present case the AO has obtained approval from Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT ... 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

Lumar Gems, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3450/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

years and therefore as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Act the AO should have obtained the approval from Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT). The ld AR further submitted that in the present case the AO has obtained approval from Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT ... 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1061/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later; (b) in a case, where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263, after

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1060/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later; (b) in a case, where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263, after

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1059/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later; (b) in a case, where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263, after

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1058/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later; (b) in a case, where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263, after

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1057/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 In

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later; in a case, where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263, after

Paresh Hiralal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the Assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4775/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Paresh Hiralal Shah, Income Tax Officer, 302, Shree Krishna Sadan, Ward 34(3)(2), Paranjpe Scheme No.2, (Assessment Unit Subhash Road, Vile Parle East, Vs. Income Tax Department) Mumbai – 400 057 Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Albps7761C Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Maharashtra - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shashi Bekal, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In The Instant Case, Though The Notice U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Issued Within 3 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year, However, It Is Admitted That The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was 2 Mr. Paresh Hiralal Shah

For Appellant: Shri Shashi Bekal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

specified authority for granting the approval for issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act, would have been, either Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director or where there is no such post then the Chief Commissioner or Director General, for granting the sanction for issuing of notice

Ms/ Kurral Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1768/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1758 & 1759/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2016-17 M/S. Hillview Renewable Power Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aadch3040D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1760 & 1761/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S. Magnolia Ecopower Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm9358C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Chetan Orchardes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcc7086L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner, etc. Sub- section (3) thereof provides as under: “(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer

M/S. Anantram Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1767/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1758 & 1759/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2016-17 M/S. Hillview Renewable Power Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aadch3040D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1760 & 1761/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S. Magnolia Ecopower Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm9358C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Chetan Orchardes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcc7086L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner, etc. Sub- section (3) thereof provides as under: “(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer

M/S. Harmony Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1766/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1758 & 1759/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2016-17 M/S. Hillview Renewable Power Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aadch3040D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1760 & 1761/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S. Magnolia Ecopower Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm9358C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Chetan Orchardes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcc7086L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner, etc. Sub- section (3) thereof provides as under: “(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer

M/S. Mahindra Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1765/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1758 & 1759/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2016-17 M/S. Hillview Renewable Power Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aadch3040D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1760 & 1761/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S. Magnolia Ecopower Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm9358C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Chetan Orchardes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcc7086L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner, etc. Sub- section (3) thereof provides as under: “(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer

M/S. Ajitabh Orchardes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1764/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1758 & 1759/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2016-17 M/S. Hillview Renewable Power Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aadch3040D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1760 & 1761/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S. Magnolia Ecopower Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm9358C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Chetan Orchardes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcc7086L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner, etc. Sub- section (3) thereof provides as under: “(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer

M/S. Bluewater Estates Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1763/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1758 & 1759/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2016-17 M/S. Hillview Renewable Power Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aadch3040D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1760 & 1761/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S. Magnolia Ecopower Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm9358C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Chetan Orchardes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcc7086L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Director General or the Chief Commissioner, etc. Sub- section (3) thereof provides as under: “(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer