Buildwell (P) Ltd. (2023) 454\nITR 212 (SC).\n2. Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. ACIT\n

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

…ding the date of its transfer. Thus, the exclusion prescribed by the non-obstante clause is limited to the purpose of modification of Section 48 & 49. In this regard, the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Amar Jewellers Ltd vs/ ACIT (2022) 444 ITR 97 would be relevant to quote wherein the scope of non-obstante clause has been discussed. 46. A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a section with a view to give the enacting part of the section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It is equivalent to sa…

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…fer. Thus, the exclusion prescribed by the non-obstante clause is limited to the purpose of modification of Section 48 & 49. In this regard, the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 249/444 ITR 97 (Gujarat) would be relevant to quote wherein the scope of non-obstante clause has been discussed. "46. A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a section with a view to give the enacting part of the section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect over the provision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It is equiv…

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

…. Thus, the exclusion prescribed by the non-obstante\nclause is limited to the purpose of modification of Section 48 & 49. In this regard, the\ndecision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. Asstt.\nCIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 249/444 ITR 97 (Gujarat) would be relevant to quote\nwherein the scope of non-obstante clause has been discussed.\n\"46. A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a section with a view to give\nthe enacting part of the section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect over the\nprovision in the same or other Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It is\…

DCIT, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. GHANSHYAM RASIKLAL SHAH, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7Th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aafps1306Q Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRINARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai vs Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah Room 732, 7th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400 051 West, Mumbai-400 067 PAN: AAFPS1306Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. No.208/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.4707/Mum/2024) (Assessment year: 2012-13) Ghanshyam Rasiklal Shah vs DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai Room 732, 7th Floor, B-1408, Shankar Park, Agrawal Residency, Sh…

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

…ng the date of its transfer. Thus, the exclusion prescribed by the non-obstante clause is\nlimited to the purpose of modification of Section 48 & 49. In this regard, the decision of Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court in the case of Amar Jewellers Ltd vs/ ACIT (2022) 444 ITR 97 would be\nrelevant to quote wherein the scope of non-obstante clause has been discussed.\n46. A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a section with a view to give the\nenacting part of the section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect over the provision in\nthe same or other Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It is equivalent t…