← 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

M.A. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Commissioner; and (b) after 4 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd 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 ... Principal Commissioner, or Principal 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 officer

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3936/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3928/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3228/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3227/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3225/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3224/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3223/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions

DCIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3087/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3012/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

cases involving system outages, emergencies, or other exceptional circumstances and even then, mandates the recording of reasons in writing, prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Director General, and contemporaneous documentation of such approval in the assessment record. The Revenue has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that such conditions

M/S. Raman and Weil Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6266/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri & Raman & Weil Private Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) Vs. Office No. 36/37, 3Rd Floor, Mittal 460, M.K. Road, Aayakar Chambers, Opp. Inox Theatre, Bhavan, Mumbai 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacr5065M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, Adv. /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana SR. DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

assessment year. (4) Where an association or institution is approved by the National Committee under sub-section (1), and subsequently— (i) that [the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) or the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)] is satisfied that the project or the scheme is not being carried ... subject to which approval was granted; or (ii) such association or institution, to which approval has been granted, has not furnished to the [Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) or the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)], after the end of each financial year, a report in such form

Raman and Weil Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6265/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhri & Raman & Weil Private Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1) Vs. Office No. 36/37, 3Rd Floor, Mittal 460, M.K. Road, Aayakar Chambers, Opp. Inox Theatre, Bhavan, Mumbai 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacr5065M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, Adv. /Revenue By: Shri R. R. Makwana Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana SR. DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

assessment year. (4) Where an association or institution is approved by the National Committee under sub-section (1), and subsequently— (i) that [the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) or the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)] is satisfied that the project or the scheme is not being carried ... subject to which approval was granted; or (ii) such association or institution, to which approval has been granted, has not furnished to the [Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) or the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)], after the end of each financial year, a report in such form

Ajit Pal Singh Choudhary, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 43(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3395/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal Accoutant Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajit Pal Singh Choudhary Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of A-139, Meera Bagh New Income Tax Circle 43(1) Delhi 110087 Pan No. Acrpc1266D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 156Section 157ASection 69

years from the end of relevant Assessment Year, the sanctioning authority as per the section 151(ii) of the Act should have been Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief commissioner but in this case the approval has been obtained from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, which ... section 151 of the Act, if more than three years have lapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General was required to be obtained. In the present assessment years, notices

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Aman Feed Industries, Khanna

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 457/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1252, 1253,1254,1255/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19,2019-20 M/S Aman Feed Industries, The Dcit, E-2, Focal Point, Vs Central Circle-1, Khanna. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 116,181,457/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 The Dcit, Vs M/S Aman Feed Industries, Central Circle-1, E-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal & Ms, Deepali Aggarwal, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 68

power, the assessing officer has to form an opinion. It is final so far he is concerned albeit subject to approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be. It is only at that stage he is required to consider the matter ... scrutinizing the accounts of an assessee and pass on the buck to the special auditor. Similarly, the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Afi Agro Pvt. Ltd., Khanna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 373/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1256, 1257,1258/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 Afi Agro Private Limited, The Dcit, A-1, Focal Point, Vs Central Circle-1, Khanna. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaeca6479L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 179,180,373/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 The Dcit, Vs Afi Agro Private Limited, Central Circle-1, A-1, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaeca6479L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

power, the assessing officer has to form an opinion. It is final so far he is concerned albeit subject to approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be. It is only at that stage he is required to consider the matter ... scrutinizing the accounts of an assessee and pass on the buck to the special auditor. Similarly, the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Aman Feed Industries, Khanna

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 181/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1252, 1253,1254,1255/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19,2019-20 M/S Aman Feed Industries, The Dcit, E-2, Focal Point, Vs Central Circle-1, Khanna. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 116,181,457/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 The Dcit, Vs M/S Aman Feed Industries, Central Circle-1, E-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal & Ms, Deepali Aggarwal, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 68

power, the assessing officer has to form an opinion. It is final so far he is concerned albeit subject to approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be. It is only at that stage he is required to consider the matter ... scrutinizing the accounts of an assessee and pass on the buck to the special auditor. Similarly, the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Afi Agro Pvt. Ltd., Khanna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 180/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1256, 1257,1258/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 Afi Agro Private Limited, The Dcit, A-1, Focal Point, Vs Central Circle-1, Khanna. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaeca6479L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 179,180,373/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 The Dcit, Vs Afi Agro Private Limited, Central Circle-1, A-1, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaeca6479L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

power, the assessing officer has to form an opinion. It is final so far he is concerned albeit subject to approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be. It is only at that stage he is required to consider the matter ... scrutinizing the accounts of an assessee and pass on the buck to the special auditor. Similarly, the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. Afi Agro Pvt. Ltd., Khanna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1256, 1257,1258/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 Afi Agro Private Limited, The Dcit, A-1, Focal Point, Vs Central Circle-1, Khanna. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaeca6479L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 179,180,373/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 The Dcit, Vs Afi Agro Private Limited, Central Circle-1, A-1, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaeca6479L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153D

power, the assessing officer has to form an opinion. It is final so far he is concerned albeit subject to approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be. It is only at that stage he is required to consider the matter ... scrutinizing the accounts of an assessee and pass on the buck to the special auditor. Similarly, the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Aman Feed Industries, Khanna

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 116/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1252, 1253,1254,1255/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19,2019-20 M/S Aman Feed Industries, The Dcit, E-2, Focal Point, Vs Central Circle-1, Khanna. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 116,181,457/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 The Dcit, Vs M/S Aman Feed Industries, Central Circle-1, E-2, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Khanna. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacfa3624L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal & Ms, Deepali Aggarwal, Cas Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Kulbhushan Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 68

power, the assessing officer has to form an opinion. It is final so far he is concerned albeit subject to approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be. It is only at that stage he is required to consider the matter ... scrutinizing the accounts of an assessee and pass on the buck to the special auditor. Similarly, the requirement of previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner in terms of the said provision being an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise of power by the Assessing Officer