Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala

4 SCC 94Supreme Court of India2009#7561 most cited

What is Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala authority for?

A non-obstante clause in a statutory provision, such as Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, has overriding effect over other provisions in the Act, implying it prevails in case of conflict.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala · non-obstante clause · overriding effect · Section 144C(1) · assessment procedure · statutory interpretation

Also reported as

21 VST 505

Judgments citing Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-010586-010589 - 2025Supreme Court08 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 44B

…Page 18 of 112 contemplated in the case of ordinary assessees. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 4 SCC 94 and In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, (2024) 6 SCC 1 in the context of interpretation of a non-obstante clause. Opinion of Learned Satish Chandra Sharma J.: 6. My learned Brother Satish Chandra Sharma, J. who has penned his judgment is of the view that the learned Additional Solicitor…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

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

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

…in consonance with the intention of the legislature in granting exemption in respect of the income earned by the assessee from housing project. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements : (i) Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala (2009) 21 VST 505 (SC), (ii) Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia vs. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 85 15. Sub-s. (5) which says that save as otherwise provided in this section. Similar provision was incorporated in sub-s. (4) of s. 115JA which is the predecessor of s. 115JB. But absent in s. 115J which preceded s. 115JA. This peculiar provision raised a controversy as to…

Caterpillar Global Mining Europe Gmbh, Peddapalli vs. Assistant of Income Tax -1, International Taxation, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 116/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…e thus observe that there would be hardly any denial to the fact that this section 144C(1) of the Act in issue contains a non- obstante clause having overriding effect over other provisions in the Act. We quote Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94 (SC) to this effect. We also sought to know from both the parties as to whether the legislature has prescribed any draft assessment proforma or not. The reply received was in negative only. Learned counsel invited our attention to case law Kalyan Kumar Ray Vs. CIT 191 ITR 634 (SC) that an “assessment” is an integrated process not only involving 2…

Caterpillar Global Mining Europe Gmbh, Peddapalli vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1127/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…e thus observe that there would be hardly any denial to the fact that this section 144C(1) of the Act in issue contains a non- obstante clause having overriding effect over other provisions in the Act. We quote Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94 (SC) to this effect. We also sought to know from both the parties as to whether the legislature has prescribed any draft assessment proforma or not. The reply received was in negative only. Learned counsel invited our attention to case law Kalyan Kumar Ray Vs. CIT 191 ITR 634 (SC) that an “assessment” is an integrated process not only involving 2…

Csaterrpillar Global Mining Europe Gmbh, Godavarikhani vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-I (International Taxation), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2072/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…e thus observe that there would be hardly any denial to the fact that this section 144C(1) of the Act in issue contains a non- obstante clause having overriding effect over other provisions in the Act. We quote Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94 (SC) to this effect. We also sought to know from both the parties as to whether the legislature has prescribed any draft assessment proforma or not. The reply received was in negative only. Learned counsel invited our attention to case law Kalyan Kumar Ray Vs. CIT 191 ITR 634 (SC) that an “assessment” is an integrated process not only involving 2…

Catterpillar Mining Europe Gmbh-India Project Office, Karimnagar vs. DCIT-1, International Taxation, Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 483/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…e thus observe that there would be hardly any denial to the fact that this section 144C(1) of the Act in issue contains a non- obstante clause having overriding effect over other provisions in the Act. We quote Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94 (SC) to this effect. We also sought to know from both the parties as to whether the legislature has prescribed any draft assessment proforma or not. The reply received was in negative only. Learned counsel invited our attention to case law Kalyan Kumar Ray Vs. CIT 191 ITR 634 (SC) that an “assessment” is an integrated process not only involving 2…

Caterpillar Global Mining Europe Gmbh-India Project Office, Karimnagar vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Internation Taxation-1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…e thus observe that there would be hardly any denial to the fact that this section 144C(1) of the Act in issue contains a non- obstante clause having overriding effect over other provisions in the Act. We quote Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94 (SC) to this effect. We also sought to know from both the parties as to whether the legislature has prescribed any draft assessment proforma or not. The reply received was in negative only. Learned counsel invited our attention to case law Kalyan Kumar Ray Vs. CIT 191 ITR 634 (SC) that an “assessment” is an integrated process not only involving 2…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Labzone Electronics City Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Alexandria Labspace Electronics City Private Limited), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1489/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Labzone Electronics Of Income Tax, City Private Limited Circle 16(1), (Formerly Known As M/S. Hyderabad. Alexandria Labspace Electronics City Private Limited), Hyderabad. Pan :Aajca1470G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad. Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai. Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Revenue’S Appeal For A.Y. 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 17.07.2019 In Case No.10331/17-18/Dcit, Cir.1(1)/Cit(A)-4/Hyd/19-20, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Section 94A(4) Addition Of Rs.18,86,00,000/- Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 29.12.2016. The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Follows :-

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. PrasadFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 94ASection 94A(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Labzone Electronics of Income Tax, City Private Limited Circle 16(1), (Formerly known as M/s. Hyderabad. Alexandria Labspace Electronics City Private Limited), Hyderabad. PAN :AAJCA1470G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad. Revenue by: Shri YVST Sai. Date of hearing: 14.02.2022 Date of pronouncement: 23.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This R…

Religare Capital Markets Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1763/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…apex Court in the cases of R.S. Raghunath vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 335, ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. SIDCO Ltd. (2006) 10 SCC 452,Ramdev Food Products (P.) Ltd. vs. ArvindbhaiRambhai Patel (2006) 8 SCC 726and Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94, reiterating that, while interpreting a non- obstante provision, the Court is required to keep in mind the intent of the Legislature and any statutory construction of such a provision is to be limited to the context/ purpose for which the same was intended. It may be useful to the refer to the observations in the case of Geeta vs. State of U.P. (201…

M/S Religare Capital Markets Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1881/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…apex Court in the cases of R.S. Raghunath vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 335, ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. SIDCO Ltd. (2006) 10 SCC 452,Ramdev Food Products (P.) Ltd. vs. ArvindbhaiRambhai Patel (2006) 8 SCC 726and Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94, reiterating that, while interpreting a non- obstante provision, the Court is required to keep in mind the intent of the Legislature and any statutory construction of such a provision is to be limited to the context/ purpose for which the same was intended. It may be useful to the refer to the observations in the case of Geeta vs. State of U.P. (201…

Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT - 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2964/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Vs. Cit-13, Mumbai Ltd., 801, Hubtown Solaris, N.S.Phadke Marg Off. Teli Galli, Near Andheri Flyover Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 069 Pan/Gir No. Aaccn7092E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 263Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM M/s. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Vs. CIT-13, Mumbai Ltd., 801, Hubtown Solaris, N.S.Phadke Marg Off. Teli Galli, Near Andheri Flyover Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 069 PAN/GIR No. AACCN7092E Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by Shri C.S. Gulati Date of Hearing 28/11/2017 Date of Pronouncement 22/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT-13, Mumbai dated 30/03/2016 for A.Y.2011-12 in the matter of order passed…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Aggarwal Plasto Chem Pvt.Ltd

ITA/144/2016HC Delhi22 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 173Section 5(1)

…to Section 3(1) of the PMLA, the offence of money laundering cannot be restricted, as is envisaged by the “pre-includes” part of the sub-section, to directly or indirectly 51 (1971) 3 SCC 550 52 AIR 1953 SC 274 53 (1979) 3 SCC 54 54 (1987) 1 SCC 424 55 (2009) 4 SCC 94 56 (2014) 9 Scale 461 57 (2022) SCC Online SC 706 58 (2020) 8 SCC 401 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.03.2026 14:32:30 Signature Not Verified LPA 144/2016 Page 40 of 61 attempting to indulge, or knowingly assisting, or knowingly being a party, or being actually involved in, any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crim…

Karnataka State Industrial Investment Development vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

WP/46786/2012HC Karnataka13 Mar 2013

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

Section 29Section 31(1)(a)

…o was liable to pay sales tax, etc. were inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the DRT Act) for 3 (2009) 4 SCC 94 12 recovery of “debt” and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Securitisation Act) for enforcement of “security interest” and whether by virtue of non obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act, the…

M/S Sankhla Polymers (P) Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

ITA/1100/2006HC Karnataka29 Jan 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 115JSection 148Section 260ASection 80

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 29th day of January, 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B SREENIVASE GOWDA Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1100 of 2006 & 33-34 of 2013 BETWEEN: M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI RAMESHCHAND P # 2, I FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD MADHAVA NAGAR BANGALORE. … APPELLANT [By Sri A Shankar, Adv. & Sri M Lava, Adv.] AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 12(2), R P BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE … RESPONDENT [By Sri M Thirumalesh, Adv.]…

M/S Super Sales Corporation vs. The Debt Recovery Tribunal

In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed

WP/14711/2003HC Karnataka08 Oct 2012

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,VIKRAMAJIT SEN (CJ)

…rs (2009) 8 SCC 257, it has been stated that the jurisdiction of the appellate Tribunal is co-extensive with the powers of the Tribunal (DRT) under the provisions of the Debt Recovery Act, 1993. 59. In Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and others [2009 4 SCC 94], while considering as to whether there was any overlapping between the two sets of Central Legislations namely Debt Recovery Act, 1993 and Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on the one hand and the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, or the Kerala Sales Tax Act, 1963 on the other hand, at pa…