“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

Atul Bhanudas Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 970/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.970/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Atul Bhanudas Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, Shetphal Haveli, Dhenu Nagar, S Ward-14(5), Pune. Bawada S.O, Shetphal Haveli, Pune – 413103. Maharashtra. Pan: Ectps5299N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Form No.36 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 14.02.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 20.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

reopening of the assessment is beyond three years and after obtaining the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 instead of Principal Chief Commissioner and same is contrary to the provisions of section 151 and therefore the Assessment Proceeding is bad in law, not sustainable, needs ... been approved by Ld.Pr.CIT-4, Pune whereas, as per provisions of Section 151, it should have been approved by Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Ld.AR submitted that the quantum involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs. Hence, no notice could have been issued after the lapse of three years from

Zuber Khan Iqbal Khal Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 757/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 Zuber Khan Iqbalkhan Pathan, V The Income Tax Officer, Karim Bidi Compound, Wadjai S Ward-1, Dhule. Road, Dhule – 424001. Maharashtra. Pan: Abrpi3068E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni –Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Both Dated 29.04.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 147 Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Respectively; Both Dated 19.05.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

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 ... three years have expired from the end of the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services

Zuber Khan Iqbal Khan Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 756/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

Panda Srinivas, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

ITA 682/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54F

ADIT (International Taxation) – 2, Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (IT & TP), Hyderabad 5. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) (SZ), Bengaluru. 6. The Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Bengaluru. 7. Pr.CIT (Central), Hyderabad. 8. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद

Vimal Kumar Banka, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vimal Kumar Banka V. The Ito 5/P/25, Dabauli Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afzb1801J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property, Jointly Held With Mrs Kanchan Talwar, During The Year Under Consideration For A Consideration Of Rs.10,00,000/- & The Value Of The Same As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs.23,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Therefore, Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

void ab initio and be quashed. 3. Because there being no approval as mandated as per section 151, from the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, the notice issued under section 148 is without jurisdiction, the reassessment framed be quashed. ITA No.25/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 10 4. Because neither the reasons

Sevugan Pethaperumal, Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1196/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri G.Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

Revision by the 28[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner* Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 29 263. (1) The 28[ 30[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or] Commissioner may call for and examine 31 the record 32 of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers ... case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the 43[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or 43[Principal Director General or] Director General or 43[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under

Kaliyaperumal Padmanaban, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Cuddalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 144

system, the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the file and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of income tax. In cases where manual communication is required to be issued due to delay in PAN migration, the proposal seeking ... shall state the fact that the communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of Income-Tax for issue of manual communication in the following format- "..This communication issues manually without a DIN on account

Madhav University, Pindwara, Sirohi vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 789/JODH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α No.789 &790/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year:2024-25) Madhav University Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Exemption, Jaipur Pindwara, Madhav Hills, Nh 27, Vpo Bharja, Pindwara, Sirohi Rajasthan-307023 Pan: Aasam7855L Shri Amit Kothari Shri M.K. Jain, Cit(Dr.) Present For Assessee Present For Revenue Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Bench: The Instant Appeals Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (For Brevity, 'Ld.Cit(E)'] Order Passed Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') & Order Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act, Date Of Orders 30/09/2024. 2. Act Both The Appeals Related To Registration Under Section 12Ab& 80G Of The

Section 11Section 12ASection 3(2)Section 80Section 80G(5)

Government", fulfilling the exemption clause under RPT Act. 2.11. It is submitted that the Supreme Court's decision in New Noble Education Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Civil Appeal No. 3795 of 2014) had reaffirmed that educational institutions seeking exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income

Sant Baba Bodha Nanad Gaushalla Committee, Mansa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 257/ASR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Sant Baba Bodha Nand Gaushalla The Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh, Committee/Aop (Trust) C/O-J. K. Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-17-E, Gupta, Advocate 4702, Hospital Vs Chandigarh-160017 Bazar, Bathinda, (Punjab)-151005 Pan-Aaits0667H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri J. K. Gupta, Adv Respondent By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit-Dr

Section 10Section 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)

here concerned whether in the absence of any statutory provision to condone the delay in presenting the application under section 10(23C)(vi), the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax can exercise any such power'. 7. The adjudicating authorities under the Income-tax Act are quasi judicial authorities. They can grant

ITO, Ward 47(1), Delhi vs. Pure Agri World, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 5379/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 5379/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Ito, Pure Agri World, 2618/19, 2Nd Floor, Ward 47(1), Vs. Delhi. Maruti Bhawan, Naya Bazar, Delhi. Pan No.Aaofp2516N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No.54/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5379/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Pure Agri World, Ito, 2618/19, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 47(1), Maruti Bhawan, Delhi. Naya Bazar, Delhi. Pan No.Aaofp2516N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151A

taxmann.com 497 (Delhi); • Bhagwan Sahai Sharma Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi); • Sheetal International (P) ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2024] 168 taxmann.com 308 (Delhi). • IBIBO Group Private Limited Vs. ACIT W.P.(C)- 17639/2022 dated 13.12.2024 (Delhi) Chandra Prakash

Aamya Resources LLP, Andheri East vs. ITO, Ward 24(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4423/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantvs. Ito, Ward 24(1)(1) Aamya Resources Llp Piramal Chamber, 1, Wilson House, Old Mumbai – 400012. Nagardas Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069. Pan/Gir No. Abcfa4651A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satish Aggarwal (Virtually Appear) Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 11.10.2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre / Cit(A), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. Although, Assessee Had Raised Number Of Grounds In The Present Appeal But At The Outset Ld. Ar Pressed Ground No.4 Which Is Legal In Question & It Goes To The Roots Of The Case. Therefore, We Have Decided To Adjudicate This Ground Firstly, Ground No. 4, Which Is Reproduced Herein Below:

Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 3(1)

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 ... More than three years Principal Chief new regime have elapsed from the Commissioner or end of the relevant Principal Director assessment year General or Chief Commissioner or Director General 15. The Supreme Court in para 75 and 76 of its judgment has further held that after 1/4/2021, the different specified

M/S. British Agro Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

ITA 1146/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1146/Chny/2025

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37

Revision by the 28[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 29 263. (1) The 28[ 30[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or] Commissioner may call for and examine 31 the record 32 of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers ... case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the 43[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or 43[Principal Director General or] Director General or 43[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under

Devasan Investments Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Delhi

ITA 4352/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147Section 151

from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-01, Delhi u/s 151(i) instead of the prescribed authority under sub 2 clause (ii) thereof i.e. Principal Chief commissioner of Income Tax etc. as held in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) taxmann.com 70 (SC). It is made clear that the above

Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(3), Delhi, New Delhi vs. Rmp Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1002/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Rmp Holdings Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 138-C, Block -B Group -4 Dilshad Garden New Delhi Pan No.Aaacr5533N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of 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 ... Section 151 (1) of Before expiry of four Principal the old regime years from the end Chief of the relevant Commissioner assessment year or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner Section 151 (1) of After expiry of four Principal the old regime years from the end Chief of the relevant Commissioner assessment

DCIT, CC- 13, Jhandewalan vs. Paragon Industries Limited, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5093/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anurag S. Daria, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 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 ... /DEL/2024 Dy. CIT Vs. Paragon Industries [A.Y 2017-18] 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

Shhlok Triton Associates, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 638/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638/Srt/2024 Assessment Year:(2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shhlok Triton Associates, Vs. Pcit – 1, F.P. No. 388, Paikee Udhna Surat Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclfs6819A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

would be proper to examine the scope and ambit of section 263 of the Act, which reads as under: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or] Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers

Suresh Kumar Mahavir Prasad Beswal, Thane vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5156/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

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

specified authority' who has to grant his sanction for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, the Chief Commissioner or Director General if more than three years have

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

clarity, the relevant extract of Section 263 of the Act is reproduced as under: ‘’263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner] may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this ... deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner, ‘(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

Guru Kripa Associates, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 263

facts which he was required to do. Sub section (1) of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 speaks that:- "263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this ... functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section

Singularity Labs Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2019-2020 Singularity Labs Private Limited Ito, Ward-4(1)(1) A Wing, Unit No.105 Vs. Ahmedabad- 380 Building No.1-A, Aqualine Properties 015. Pvt.Ltd. It/Ites Sez, Koba Gandhinagar – 382 421 Pan : Aaycs 8711 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Assessee By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Asst.Year : 2019-20 4 Act, the power to condone the delay in filing such reports rests only with the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, or Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and not with the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The assessee was advised