← All Phrases

“Principal Director of Income-tax”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(34C) / Section 1175 judgments

The decision most relied on for Principal Director of Income-tax is Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (457 ITR 647), cited in 95 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Principal Director of Income-tax

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.

Judgments citing Principal Director of Income-tax

Income Tax Officer 23 2 6, Mumbai vs. Manmohan Daulal Rathi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5467/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

reasons recorded for re-opening, it is noted that “the only basis for forming the belief is the report from the principal Director of Income-tax and the application of mind to the report of the Assessing Officer along with the record available with him.” In para-4, while concluding

Santosh Rathore, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 451/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

Texchem (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, (2021) 129 taxmann.com 85 (Gujrat) that if, on the basis of information supplied by the office of Principal Director of Income-tax Page 37 of 49 (iii) (iv) Santosh Rathore ITA No. 451/Ind/2024 - AY 2015-16 (Investigation), the AO has found that the assessee

Vinod Garg, Udaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 747/JODH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate and Raksha Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 420

Crime No.215/2018 u/s 420 IPC, Sec 102 Cr.PC dated 05.09.2018. A warrant u/s 132A of the IT Act, 1961 was issued by Principal Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Hyderabad to take possession of the unaccounted and untaxed cash from custody of the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Hydrabad. Accordingly

Burhanuddin Bohra, Udaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 736/JODH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate and Raksha Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Brij Lal Meena, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 420

Crime No.215/2018 u/s 420 IPC, Sec 102 Cr.PC dated 05.09.2018. A warrant u/s 132A of the IT Act, 1961 was issued by Principal Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Hyderabad to take possession of the unaccounted and untaxed cash from custody of the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Hydrabad. Accordingly

Anusha Finvest Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

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

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer grossly erred in reopening the assessment proceeding only on the basis of information received from the office of Principal Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad and without applying his own mind independently which is illegal and bad in law and thus deserves to be quashed. 3. That