“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

Income Tax Officer, Infinity Towers, Sankarmatham Road vs. Ammaji Chennupati, Rajeevnagar, Kurmannapalem

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 441/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

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 ... statutorily obligated to have obtained the approval from either of the authorities specified u/s. 151(ii) of the extant law, viz. Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. However

Rama Associates Private Limited Earlier As Essel Realty Developers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. NFAC, Assessment Unit, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 316/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151

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 of Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three ... year. In terms of provisions of Section 151, as amended by Finance Act, 2021, therefore, the specified authority for grant of approval becomes Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner of Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. We find that

Satish Chopra (Individual), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3435/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Sourabh Rohtagi, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

relevant assessment year, thus, in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act, the same was required to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant ... 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

Tejashree Atul Patil, Pune vs. Pr.CIT - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 927/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) record shall include and shall be deemed always

K.1316 Muthur Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Limited, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 1497/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

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

Return of Income (RoI) K 1316 Muthur Primary Agricultural – Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. :: 2 :: is pending before the competent authority i.e. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the assessee’s claim

ITO-34.2.1, Mumbai vs. Mangal Suresh Karkhanis, Mumbai

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

ITA 486/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

assessment year (31.03.2017), the requirement of law under the amended section 151(ii) was that sanction had to be granted only by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, or in their absence, the Chief Commissioner or Director General. In the assessee's case, however, sanction was granted ... 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

Ms Aditya Plastic, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.185 & 186/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ M/S Aditya Plastic The Income Tax Officer Umiya Industrial Building Ward-3(1)(1) Vs. Near New Nehru Nagar Rajkot -360 001 Main Road, Dhebar Road Rajkot – 360 004 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa 4558 In (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench-: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cit(A)-[(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 01/02/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Dated 29/09/2021Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 119Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961, an assessing officer gets jurisdiction to issue notice to an assessee under section 148 of the Act, 1961 after Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income-tax is satisfied on the reason recorded by the assessing officer that ... issued by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the Prescribed Authority ie. the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Subsequent to issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, the satisfaction

Ms Aditya Plastic, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Rajkot-

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 119Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Nandigam Veerabrahmam, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 271/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Vishal Vijay Jaiswal, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1634/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

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 ... Section 151 of the Act, the Competent Authority to approve the notice u/s.148 and order u/s.148A(d) of the Act, is the ld.Principal Chief Commissioner of Income or ld.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, in this case, notice has been approved by ld.Principal Commissioner of Income

Star Ceramics, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1064/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala & Shri Hemasundar Rao P., CAsFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69A

issued after April 1, 2021, are invalid as the amended provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the Act require prior approval from the Chief Commissioner or Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, not the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. V The order issued under Section 148A ... assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. It was submitted that the Act requires prior approval from the Chief Commissioner of Principal Chief Commissioner and not Principal Commissioner of Income Tax which has been taken by the AO. On this ground it was submitted

Hitachi Astemo Haryana Private Limited, Faridabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3353/DEL/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Hitachi Astemo Haryana Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax, Circle Plot No. 23-32, Sector-58, 10(1), C. R. Building, Behind Jcb India Ltd, Ito, Ip Estate, Faridabad, Haryana, India New Delhi Pan: Aabce5725G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03 /09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(5)Section 254Section 270ASection 92C

within a period of 3 months from the end of the month in which order u/s 254 of the Act received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or as the case may be. In the present case, the Co-ordinate Bench ... within the period of three months from the end of the month in which order u/s 254 of the Act received by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. 6 Hitachi Astemo Haryana Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 10. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ofHuawei Telecommunications India Company

Naba Utkal Trust, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.268/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Naba Utkal Trust, Vs Ito, Exemption, Bhubaneswar Plot No.841, Keshab Complex, Cuttack Road, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. : Aabtn 0126 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 28.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji, For The Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 60 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Of 60 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Due To Lack Of Knowledge About The Order Passed By The Ld.Pcit. Accordingly, The Assessee Prayed That The Delay Of 60 Days May Kindly Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Kindly Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Objection To This Contention Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, We Are Of The View That The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI

Rajasthan State Health Assurance Agency, Jaipur vs. It Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 808/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Rajvanshi,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

section (2) of section 119 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act)Central Board of Direct Taxes (the Board), hereby directs that the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Director General of Income-tax may reduce or waive interest charged under section ... RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR this Order for the period and to the extent the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax/Director General of Income-tax may deem fit. However, no reduction or waiver of such interest shall be ordered unless the principal demand under sections

DCIT, CC-3, Ludhiana, Kitchlu Nagar vs. Mani Ram Balwant Rai HUF, Civil Lines

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

ITA 1042/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1042/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Mani Ram Balwant Rai, Huf, Central Circle-3, Vs Civil Lines, Opposite Session Court(Old) Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaghm1535C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. 43/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1042/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mani Ram Balwant Rai, Huf, The Dcit, Civil Lines, Opposite Session Court(Old) V Central Circle-3, Ludhiana. S Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaghm1535C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, Ca & Shri Hunny Bajaj, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CA and Shri Hunny Bajaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

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 [***] Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year

Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala, Jamnagar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 103/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.103/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdulkadar Hajiahmed Vadiwala The Pr.Cit बनाम Maniar Street, Lindi Bazar Jamanagar. Jamnagar-361001 Vs. Pan : Aatpv 4729 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

years from the end of the assessment year, three years expires on 31.03.2020. Hence, as per amended provisions of section 151 approval of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is required for issuance of notice beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. In the present case Ld.AO ... beyond period of three years, approval was required to be taken as per provisions of amended section 151 of the Act from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income Tax and not from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and as laid down

Tulsi Jewellers, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer - Ward 5, Navsari

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 947/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

extended to 30.06.2021. Beyond this, if any sanction was to be obtained for the AY 2017-18, it should be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCCIT) as per the amended provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2021. However, the approval in the instant

Tulsi Jewellers, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Navsari

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 946/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Mohammed Abdul Najeeb, Gulbarga, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

ITA 1175/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CA

Section 127Section 131(1)(d)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153D

extracting the Section 127, “Power to transfer cases”. “Power to transfer cases. 127. (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever ... 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) (b) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief

Sudhir Damji Bharani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 4504/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 69A

4504/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2016-17 Sudhir Damji Bharani the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, instead of Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of section 151 of the Act. 4.3 The Ld.AR submitted that, Hon’ble Supreme Court ... four years of the old from the end of the regime relevant assessment year Section 151(1) After expiry of four years Principal Chief Commissioner or of the old from the end of the Chief Commissioner or Principal regime relevant assessment year Commissioner or Commissioner Section 151(i) of Three