“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

Vinod Kumar Singhal, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1004/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, PR.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

sake of convenience, we are reproducing section 263 of the Act hereunder: “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 Page 11 of 14 the record of any proceeding under this

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai

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

ITA 935/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

granted to only charitable trusts/Institutions. The assessee has also been approved in terms of Section 10(23C)(v) of the Act by the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai [in short 'CCIT, Mumbai]. If a trust is registered u/s 12A of the Act, the income derived from property held ... religious institution” or to a “wholly religious and charitable institution”. The assessee was granted approval u/s 10(23C)(v) of the Act by the Chief Commissioner of Income 14 ITA Nos. 9328 935/Mum/2023 tax, vide his order dated 17th March, 2008. In the said order, it is specifically mentioned that

Shree Sai Baba Santhan Trust Mumbai, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 932/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 147Section 153Section 80G

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Nishan Govindbhai Thakkar, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1641/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R

Section 14Section 148Section 149Section 69

less than fifty lakh rupees. Further before invoking the extended period of limitation, the proposal was that approval should be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In the present case, the approval was taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as submitted by the appellant ... ensure that utmost care was taken before invoking the extended period of limitation, the proposal was that approval should be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, at the highest hierarchical level of the department. Likewise, the Memorandum emphasized that the new regime was forged with the hope

The Tarkwari Co-Operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., Hamirpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Hamirpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 952/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 952/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Tarkwari Co-Operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. Vill: Tarkwari, P.O. Tarkwari, Tehsil: Bhoranj, Dist: Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh-177001 बनाम The ITO Ward, Hamirpur स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABAT1500E प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ajay Patyal, Advocate Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Da

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Patyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

account of delay in getting accounts audited under respective state laws and to mitigate genuine hardship, the powers have been granted to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Director General of Income Tax to consider the condonation application under section

Davos International Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta / Shri DhavalFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 151Section 68

that the notice in assessee's case is issued after period of three years and therefore the approval should have been obtained from Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151(ii) whereas the approval has been obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax (International ... 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

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Tapadiya Constructions Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 976/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: MS.ASHTA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 281A

account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly

M/S Kumar Piyush Construction Private Ltd, Nalanda vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

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

ITA 156/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

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 er Commissioner, (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 48(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1272/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant 2, Lal Bazaar Street, 1St Floor, Kol-700001.. [Pan: Aaccm0481E] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata…….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 U/S 139 Of The Act On 20.07.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Based On Information Received Through Itba Software Under The Head High Risk Transaction Case Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued & Finally Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 13.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed Return On 02.11.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,647. Assessment Was Made Under Sec. 147 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Read With Section 144B Of The Act On 24.05.2023 Determining Total Income Of Rs.6,55,31,471/- Inter-Alia Making Following Addition:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Commissioner; and (b) after 4 M. A Financial Services Pvt. Ltd 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

Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Principal Director-General or the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner; or where the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different Principal Directors- General or Principal Chief Commissioners ... Principal Commissioners, by the Principal Directors-General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Board or by such Principal Director-General or Principal Chief 9 Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi. Commissioner or Principal Commissioner as the Board may, by notification

Shilpa Vivek Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 41(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5936/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 3(1)

relevant assessment year i.e. 2017-18 and therefore as per provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act, only Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Directorate General or Chief Commissioner or Directorate General were empowered/authorized to grant the approval for the purposes of notice and order respectively u/s 148 & 148A ... falls within the provisions of section 151(ii) of the amended law whereby the specified authority for grant of approval is specified as Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Contrary to this requirement, the approval obtained in this respect is by Principal Commissioner

Shri Paresh Harji Ramani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -29(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5447/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

along with the other members of the said Samaj, filed various complaints to various authorities, including the police authorities, the economic offences wing, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, etc. In fact, the scam has also been taken note of by various media and also the Honorable High Court ... Bombay while rejecting the bail application of the perpetrator/kingpin, Mr. Navin Rathod. A copy of the application filed before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai alongwith other all the relevant documents is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". However, no real action has been taken

State Bank of India, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road vs. ACIT, DCIT-TDS, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 728/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Sr

Section 10(5)Section 191(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 292BSection 4(1)

custody any such books of account or other documents for a period exceeding ten days (exclusive of holidays) without obtaining the approval of the Chief Commissioner or the Director General or the Director General therefor, as the case may be,] (ii) make an inventory of any cash, stock or other

Viswanadh Kandula, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1085/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1084 To 1088 & 1027/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) M/S Ace Tyres (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aadca2210N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Six Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Six Separate Orders Dated 29/05/2025, 30/05/2025, 04/06/2025, 096/06/2025, 17/06/2025 & 14/07/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Arising From The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations U/S 132 Of The Act, Dated 04/01/2023 In Case Of Exel Group Of Companies Including The Assessee For The A.Ys 2014-15 To 2019-20 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Raised In These Group Of Six Appeals Arising From Same Facts & Search & Seizure Operation, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, All Page 1 Of 78

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

record reveals that the request for approval under section 151 of the Act in a printed format was placed before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax ["PCCIT"] on 20-3-2023. PCCIT granted the approval the same day. The approval accorded by the PCCIT in Column

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1654/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri B. S. Balachandran, Advocate

Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Inserted by Act 3 of 1989, Section 52.] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later: [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal ... completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;][ Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).] (b)in a case where the relevant assessment

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1632/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

Inserted by Act 3 of 1989, Section 52.] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later: [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal ... completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;] [ Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).] (b)in a case where the relevant assessment

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1631/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

Inserted by Act 3 of 1989, Section 52.] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later: [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal ... completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;] [ Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).] (b)in a case where the relevant assessment

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1630/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

Inserted by Act 3 of 1989, Section 52.] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later: [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal ... completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;] [ Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).] (b)in a case where the relevant assessment

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

Inserted by Act 3 of 1989, Section 52.] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later: [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal ... completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;] [ Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).] (b)in a case where the relevant assessment

Yogesh Ashok Mundade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 11(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5084/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh M. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr. D/R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 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. I.T.A. No. 5084/Mum/2024 7 75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities ... 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