← 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

Sridhar Kumari, Kanchipuram vs. ACIT, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 398/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sridhar Kumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 12-B, First Street, Ellappa Nagar, Income Tax, Kanchipuram 631 502. Non Corporate Circle 22(1), (Tbm), Chennai. [Pan:Anppk2206G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

issued notice dated 30.06.2021 under section 148 of the Act, which is barred by limitation. He submits that the proper specified authority is Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax [“PCCIT” in short] and drew our attention to the order dated 21.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, argued ... contemplated under section 151 of the Act. We note that Clause (ii) of section 151 of the Act clearly explains that the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Director General is the specified authority for the purpose of section 148 and 148A of the Act for sanction

ACIT, Circle, Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Abhishek Rajendrakumar Mundra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3929/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3929/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Acit, Circle, Mumbai V/S. Abhishek Rajendrakumar 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal बिाम Mundra Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, C-28, Ameya Building, Mumbai-400012 Behind Ymca, Dn Nagar, Po Azad Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpm5067H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी प्रनि आपत्ति सुं./ Co No. 100/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3929/Mum/2024) (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Abhishek Rajendrakumar V/S. Acit, Circle, Mumbai बिाम Mundra 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal C-28, Ameya Building, Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Behind Ymca, Dn Nagar, Mumbai-400012 Po Azad Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpm5067H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

objection: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO, has not acquired the mandatory approval by Principal Chief Commissioner or other specified authority for the purpose of section 148 as required u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessment itself

Jindal Charitable Society, Delhi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)-3, Delhi

In the result, the assessees‟ appeals are allowed

ITA 20/DEL/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshlala Sher Singh Memorial Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, Jhandewalan, New Plot No. 18, Sector-22, Phase-1, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi-110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaal2241H Jindal Charitable Society, Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Ps-2, C-3, Block, Phase-Ii, Jhandewalan, New Ashok Vihar, Delhi- 110052 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0588L Florence Nighingale Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Educational Society, Jhandewalan, New Sector-16B, Phase-I, Haf Delhi Pocket-A, Sector-22, Delhi- 110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaaf1097R

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jintender Singh, CIT DR
Section 119Section 12ASection 132Section 80G

reproduce the section 127 of the Act as follows- “Power to transfer cases. 127. (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner Of Chief Commissioner 01 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 of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, (a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners

Florence Nightingale Educational Society, Delhi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)-3, Delhi

In the result, the assessees‟ appeals are allowed

ITA 19/DEL/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshlala Sher Singh Memorial Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, Jhandewalan, New Plot No. 18, Sector-22, Phase-1, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi-110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaal2241H Jindal Charitable Society, Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Ps-2, C-3, Block, Phase-Ii, Jhandewalan, New Ashok Vihar, Delhi- 110052 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0588L Florence Nighingale Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Educational Society, Jhandewalan, New Sector-16B, Phase-I, Haf Delhi Pocket-A, Sector-22, Delhi- 110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaaf1097R

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jintender Singh, CIT DR
Section 119Section 12ASection 132Section 80G

reproduce the section 127 of the Act as follows- “Power to transfer cases. 127. (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner Of Chief Commissioner 01 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 of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, (a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners