“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

The Haryana State Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

Appeal is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

directly attributable to”. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the case of Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Another [2017] 396 ITR 0371 (AP) in para 34 has discussed about the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... different note.” 10. Further Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telengana in the case of Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Limited -vs.- Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Another [2017] 396 ITR 371 (AP), wherein it has been held that Cooperative Society is eligible for deduction under section

Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2284/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2284/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) M/S. Mumbai Port Trust V/S. Cit (Exemptions) Port Bhavan, Shoorji बिधम 617, Piramal Chamber, Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 Pier, Mumbai-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatm5001D Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40a

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 made48

Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. Dct, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR

Section 10Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 153A

under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending any such order; or (ii) a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General or a Principal Director or Director under section 263 or under section 272A

Vardayini Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 1991/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1991/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vardayini Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Pune. Housing Society Limited, Plot No.96, Vardayini Sangruh Marva, Pashan Sus Road, Pune- 411021. Pan : Aabav3603Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Have Erred In Considering The Gross Total Income Of Rs. 6,32,09,055/- As Assessed Income Of The Appellant, Without Appreciating The Fact That Out Of This Rs. 5,35,00,000/- Is Already Offered For Taxation & Taxes Due Thereon Are Fully Paid

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

cases referred to in para 3, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby directs that the Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (CCsIT)/Directors General of Income-tax (DGsIT) are authorised to deal with such applications of condonation of delay pending before

Jeevan Kalyana Sadhana Kendra, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Sambalpur

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

ITA 195/CTK/2025[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack28 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

Jeevan Kalyana Sadhana Kendra. dated 19-07-2022 issued under Section 119(2)(b) by which the powers delegated to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income Tax to condone the delay in filing Form 10B beyond 365 days up to 3 years from the assessment year

Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Panchkula vs. Pr. C.I.T., Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 365/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sanjeev Garg, Vs The Pcit, House No. 77, Sector 4, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afopg5637A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

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

Dattatray Hanmantrao Desai, Karad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 1240/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok B NawalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

same in a mechanical manner. 22. We find the provisions of section 263 of the Act read 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 ... case may be,] 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

JCIT(OSD), Delhi vs. Urjaa Metalics Pvt Ltd Earlier Known As Accil Auto Steels (P) Ltd, Delhi

ITA 347/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR

Section 153Section 153(3)Section 153A

expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed ... Principal Commissioner or Commissioner: [Provided that where the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

JCIT(OSD), Delhi vs. Urjaa Metalics Pvt Ltd Earlier Known As Accil Auto Steels (P) Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 346/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR

Section 153Section 153(3)Section 153A

Urjaa Metalics Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Accil Auto Steels Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

ITA 3920/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 153Section 153(3)Section 153A

Urjaa Metalics Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Accil Auto Steels Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

ITA 3919/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR

Section 153Section 153(3)Section 153A

ACIT in Charge of Income Tax Officer -22(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Pandurang Ramsingh Gadhari, Lokvatika Kalyan East

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1830/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250

relevant assessment year, the sanction as per the provision of section 151 (ii) of the Act, could have been taken from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General only, but not from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, as has taken in this

Jayesh Ramniklal Dedhia, Mumbai vs. ACIT 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration stands allowed

ITA 6869/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 151Section 250

Mumbai, which is in violation to the provision of section 151(ii) of the Act, which empowered the specified authorities, such as Pr. Chief Commissioner or Pr. Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income Tax, for granting sanction for issuing the notices u/s 148 and 148A

Jayesh Rammiklal Dedhia, Mumbai vs. ACIT 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals under consideration stands allowed

ITA 6868/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 151Section 250

Desai Infra Projects(I) Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Central Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1851/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathank, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Mohd Hasnain Mohd Ilyas Ansari, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 583/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall communicate the order passed by him to the assessee and to the 16 Chief Commissioner or Commissioner]. 5. In view of the above provisions and in the given set of facts, we remit the matter back to file of ld. Assessing Officer. Needless

Meenakshi Foundation, New Delhi vs. PCIT Central 3, New Delhi

ITA 3952/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar, Yadav, CIT DR

Section 10Section 12(1)Section 127Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'E': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV

Jar Pictures LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 4410/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year then, approval has to be sought from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, the notice issued with the approval of ld. PCIT (Central ... year, then ld. PCIT or ld. CIT can grant approval / sanction the notice; and if it is more than three years, then ld. Pr. Chief Commissioner or ld. Chief Commissioner are the specified authorities who can sanction the notice. Here in this case, the notice u/s.148 has been issued

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 116/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

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 15 ITA Nos. 111 – 116/RPR/2025 Sharda Steel Traders ... 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

Sharda Steel Traders, Raipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

ITA 115/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)