“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

Mujmmeel, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Miss. Swatika Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT a

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69A

would appropriate to go through the provision of that section which reads as under : Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 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 ... 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

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

report in Form No. 3CL referred to in clause (b) shall be furnished electronically by the prescribed authority to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Principal Director General of Income-tax or Director General of Income- tax having jurisdiction over such company

M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Yagnesh Harnish Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4540/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

falls within the provisions of Section 151(ii) of the amended law where the specified authority for grant of approval is specified as Principal Chief Commissioner/ Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, whereas, in the appeals under consideration, the approval obtained is from Principal Commissioner of Income

ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Yagnesh Harnish Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4538/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

after obtaining necessary satisfaction from the competent authority, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 21/07/2022 with the prior approval of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat. 3.1 Thereafter, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.05.2022 (2022 SCC online ... Ward 5(2), Jaipur in the case of M/s N.K. Agarwal & Sons, PAN: AAAHN5067J, [assessee’s HUF] after taking approval of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide her office letter No. PR.CCIT/ITO(Tech.)/F-115.1/2022-23/3543 dated 21.07.2022 has also held that assessee’s HUF case

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, Kadapa

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 670/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.A.Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR and

Section 132Section 56(1)(vii)

general or special order authorizes / 36 ITA No.670/Hyd/2022 & CO No.1/Hyd/2023 Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy*= empowers the Director General of Income Tax (in short ‘DGIT) or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (in short ‘CCIT) or Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short ‘Pr. CIT) to issue orders

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the as In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2377/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 14ASection 35

authority to the Principal Chief furnished electronically by the prescribed authority to the Principal Chief furnished electronically by the prescribed authority to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax or Chief Commissioner of Income tax or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Principal Director General of Income

Rekha Chandrakant Padalkar, Kandivali (East) vs. Income Tax Officer 42(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6554/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Rekha Chandrakant Padalkar Ito 42(3)(2) 701/702 B Wing, Gokul Kautilya Bhavan Paradise, Thakur Complex Vs. Bandra Kurla Kandivali East, Mumbai Complex, Bandra 400 101. East, Mumbai-51. Pan : Awdpp8597Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Dinar Prakash Daptari

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 50CSection 54

mentioned that if the notice of reopening is issued after three years, then approval is to be taken from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In the impugned case, the A.Y. involved is A.Y. 2017-18 and reopening notice was issued on 21.7.2022 which is beyond the three years ... approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and not the approval of PCCIT. The sanctioning authority to give approval beyond three years is Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax u/s. 151(ii) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. In view of the improper approval, it was argued

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

Even the CBDT Letter No.286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated Oct 3, 2003 in this respect read as under: “To The Chief Commissioners of Income Tax, (Cadre Contra) & All Directors General of Income Tax Inv. Sir, Subject: Confession of additional Income during the course of search & seizure and survey operation – regarding Instances have

Deputy Commissoenr of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

Nishchint Bagga, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 23(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6261/DEL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Neelam Jain, 374, Veer Apartment, Ward-36(1), Sector-103, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Ajppj0908E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

Assessing Authority had obtained the necessary approval from the PCIT, Delhi than the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or……………………., if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant previous year. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from ... 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

M/S. Arthbharti Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1848/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1848/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Arthbharti Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1, Latur. Adarsh Colony, Old Ausa Road, Latur – 413512. Pan: Aabaa2265P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2018-19Dated 24.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Without Prejudice To Other Grounds & On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings So Completed Are Invalid Since The Addition Is Made On An Issue Different Than That For Which Case Was Re-Opened. Since, The Issue Of Re-Opening Did Not Survive The Assessment Proceedings Becomes Void-Ab-Initio. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated & Completed Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 80P

assessment year more than three years. As per 6 Section 151 of the Act, approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is required, if period involved is more than three years from the end of the Assessment Year. Therefore, in the case of assessee for A.Y.2018-19, approval of Principal ... Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was required. However, approval has been given by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik. Therefore, it is bad in law and hence, it needs to be quashed. 2.1 The notices issued under section 148A and 148 are by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing

Abdul Saeed Issak Mulla, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153Section 274Section 69A

after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 6 Abdul Saeed Issak Mulla 75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different ... 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

Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 68Section 69C

after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after 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

Totalenergies Marketing Services, France vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3405/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 153Section 274Section 69A

Moonlight Studio, Nagpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

ITA 287/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)Section 154

issue although the application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income was already pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur. (2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in making adjustment

Shyamganj Pirijpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., West Midnapore vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 38, West Midnapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1961/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1961/Kol/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shyamganj Pirijpur Samabay V/S Acit, Circle-38, Midnapur Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Vill & P.O. Shyamganj, Block-Daspur Ii, Dist-Paschim Medinipur-721153 West Bengal Pan : Aalas8075R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhry, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80P

ensure uniformity and predictability in tax administration. Notwithstanding the above, the appellant is advised to seek remedy by making an application before the concerned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) for the condonation of delay. This is in accordance with Instruction No. R11015/01/2023-CD-I dated 03.08.2023 issued by the Government

DCIT Central Circle 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Pinac Stock Brokers Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 858/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R N Dsouza, CIT.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 68

passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court is received by the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner or the order of revision under section 263 or section 264 is passed, an order imposing or enhancing or reducing ... which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court is received by the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner or the order of revision under section 263 or section 264 is passed…” 6. In the above circumstances, we do not find

Ivy Comptech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Ivy Competech Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaac18884K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nageswara Rao, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Nageswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

perusal of the screenshot of Case History Notings of the Dispute Resolution Panel read with the affidavit filed by Mr. Satish Sharma, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Ms. Anne Varghese, the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, clearly indicate that once the DRP directions are uploaded and the Document