TRO v. Custodian, Special Court Act

293 ITR 369Supreme Court of India2007#7837 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 10AASection 115JBSection 143(1)Section 145Section 43BSection 45Q

Judgments citing TRO v. Custodian, Special Court Act

EXCELRA KNOWLEDGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 202/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.202/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Excelra Knowledge Vs. Dy. Cit Solutions (P) Ltd, Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcg5715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated10/02/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 438Section 43B

…section 45Q of RBI Act and section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961 has no role to play so far as the income recognition is concerned. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer, Central Range-1 reported in 293 ITR 369 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Page 6 of 19 ITA No 202 of 2023 Excelra Knowledge Solutions P Ltd order of the Special Court in view of section 13 of the Special Court Act has an overriding effect to the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that even after the insertion of Explanati…

SIMEC INDUS RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 23(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 71/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisimec Indus Resources Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. 257/Dda Commercial Circle-23(2), Complex-1, Cycle Market, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prabhat Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act, the provision of SEZ Act will prevail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer v. Custodian Appointed under the Special Court 293 ITR 369 had an occasion to consider the meaning of language employed in Section 13 of the Special Court Act. In Section 13 of the Special Court Act, it was stated that provision of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that there can be…

SOLITAIRE DIAMOND EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3128/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhana.Y : 2012-13 :

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmode
Section 10ASection 51

…Act. For such proposition, the learned AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer vs Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of offences relating to transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 and others, 293 ITR 369 (SC). Further, the learned AR submitted, in a series of decisions involving identical nature of dispute, the Tribunal has consistently held that import of diamonds for the purpose of export qualifies for deduction under Section 10AA of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the following decisions :- i) DCIT vs Goenka Diamonds & Jewellers Ltd.,…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE VIJYA LAXMI EXPORTS, SURAT

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 815/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2342/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vijaya Laxmi Exports, Ward-3(4), Surat. 5-15, Patel Park, Tadwadi, Rander Road, Surat – 395 009. [Pan: Aaifv 1685 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No. 815/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Shree Vijaya Laxmi Exports, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat. S-15, Patel Park, Tadwadi, Rander Road, Surat – 395 009. [Pan: Aaifv 1685 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh –Cit(Dr)

Section 10A

…er law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act, the provisions of SEZ Act will prevail. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tax Recovery Office V/s. Custodian Appointed under the Special Court, 293 ITR 369 had an occasion to consider the meaning of language employed in section 13 of the Special Court Act. In section of the Special Court Act, it was stated that provision of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that there can be no…

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1318/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No. 1302/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit, Circle-9(1), New Delhi....………………...…….........………………………............….Revenue/Department

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 45I

…Income Tax Act, 1961. For the proposition that the specific legislation override all the other legislations, he relied in the case of TRO v. Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 [2007] 293 ITR 369 (SC). It was his case that Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment in the case of Southern Technologies vs. JCIT; 320 ITR 577 had not considered these decisions. The jurisdictional ITAT order in the case of Liluah Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT; ITA No.2294/Kol/2010 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No. 1302/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit, Circle-9(1), New Delhi....………………...…….........………………………............….Revenue/Department

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 45I

…Income Tax Act, 1961. For the proposition that the specific legislation override all the other legislations, he relied in the case of TRO v. Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 [2007] 293 ITR 369 (SC). It was his case that Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment in the case of Southern Technologies vs. JCIT; 320 ITR 577 had not considered these decisions. The jurisdictional ITAT order in the case of Liluah Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT; ITA No.2294/Kol/2010 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar…

M/S. CLIFF SCAFFOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4530/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 36

…y virtue of any law other than this Act. The provision of SEZ Act will prevail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer vs. Custodian Appointed under the Special Court Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities Act, 1992 [2007] 293 ITR 369/163 Taxman 441 had an occasion to consider the meaning of language employed in section 13 of the Special Court Act. In section 13 of the Section Court Act, it was state that provision of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The Hon'ble Apex Court held tha…

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 12

ITA/440/2016HC Delhi03 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 30ASection 43DSection 6E

…ich held that the RBI Act does not override the provisions of the Act. The Court reconciled the said judgment with the decision in TRO v. Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 [2007] 293 ITR 369 (SC) which held that where an Act makes a provision with a non-obstante clause, that would override the provisions of all other Acts. 21.1 In CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 440 (Del.), the Court was concerned with the concept of income recognition. In that case, the Assessee was a non-banking financial company which had a…

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 12

ITA/444/2016HC Delhi03 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 30ASection 43DSection 6E

…ich held that the RBI Act does not override the provisions of the Act. The Court reconciled the said judgment with the decision in TRO v. Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 [2007] 293 ITR 369 (SC) which held that where an Act makes a provision with a non-obstante clause, that would override the provisions of all other Acts. 21.1 In CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 440 (Del.), the Court was concerned with the concept of income recognition. In that case, the Assessee was a non-banking financial company which had a…

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 12

ITA/442/2016HC Delhi03 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPECIAL BENCHES

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 30ASection 43DSection 6E

…ich held that the RBI Act does not override the provisions of the Act. The Court reconciled the said judgment with the decision in TRO v. Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 [2007] 293 ITR 369 (SC) which held that where an Act makes a provision with a non-obstante clause, that would override the provisions of all other Acts. 21.1 In CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 440 (Del.), the Court was concerned with the concept of income recognition. In that case, the Assessee was a non-banking financial company which had a…

ACIT,NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE DELHI STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri O.P. Kant, Am Ita No. 518/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. S.C.GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…are as under:- (1) CIT V Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co, 46 ITR 144 (SC) [1962] (2) CIT Vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, 330 ITR 440 (Delhi), 2011 (3) DIT Vs Brahmaputra Capital Financial Services Ltd, 335 ITR 182 (Delhi), 2011 ITA NO. 2537/Del/2012 (4) TRO Vs Custodian, 293 ITR 369 (Del) (5) Barkha Investment & Trading Co P Ltd Vs CIT, 281 ITR 31 (Guj) (6) CIT Vs Nanital Bank Ltd, 309 ITR 335 (Uttarakhand) (7) CIT Vs Elgi Finance Ltd, 293 ITR 357 (Mad) (8) CIT V s Motor Credit Co P Ltd, 127 ITR 572 (Mad) [1981] (9) CIT Vs Coimbatore Lakshmi Inv. & Finance Co Ltd, 331 ITR 229 (Mad) [2011] 8.1 We find that as per RBI prudenti…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE VAISH CO-OPERATIVE ADARSH BANK LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merits is

ITA 3310/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Danday, ACIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Bhatt, Advocate
Section 80P(2)(a)

…e laws some of which are as under:- (1) CIT Vs Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co, 46 ITR 144 (SC) [1962] (2) CIT Vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, 330 ITR 440 (Delhi), 2011 (3) DIT Vs Brahmaputra Capital Financial Services Ltd, 335 ITR 182 (Delhi), 2011 (4) TRO Vs Custodian, 293 ITR 369 (Del) (5) Barkha Investment & Trading Co P Ltd Vs CIT, 281 ITR 31 (Guj) (6) CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd. 309 ITR 335 (Uttarakhand) (7) CIT vs Elgi Finance Ltd. 293 ITR 357 (Mad) (8) CIT Vs Motor Credit Co P Ltd, 127 ITR 572 (Mad) [1981] (9) CIT Vs Coimbatore Lakshmi Inv. & Finance Co Ltd, 331 ITR 229 (Mad) [2011] (10) UCO Bank Vs CIT, 237 ITR 889 (…

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…strictly as per the provisions of the Companies Act. 22.9 Further, it is trite law that the provisions of a specific Act would override the provisions of all other Acts as has been held in the following decisions: - TRO v Custodian, Special Court Act, 1934: 293 ITR 369 (SC) - CIT v India Equipment Leasing Ltd: 293 ITR 350 (Mad) - CIT v Elgi Finance Ltd: 293 ITR 357 (Mad) - VasisthChayVyapar Ltd: 330 ITR 440 (Del) - DCIT vs. BhartiyaSamruddhi Finance Ltd.: 58 SOT 141 (Del) 22.10 In view of the above, it is patently clear that the appellant prepares its annual accounts in accordance with the applicable laws, in…

COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHISTH CHAY VYAPAR LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1191 / 2007HC Delhi29 Nov 2010

…ubmission was that as per the provisions of Section 45Q of the RBI Act, interest income in respect of NPA are to be recognized in terms of the Prudential Norms. He took support from the judgment of the Apex Court in TRO Vs. Custodian, Special Court Act, 1934, 293 ITR 369 wherein it was held that where an Act makes a provision with non-obstante clause that would override the provisions of all other Acts. In addition, he referred to the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Barkha Investment And · Trading Company (Private Ltd. Vs. CIT, 281 ITR 31, that of Uttrakhand High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nainita…

TRO v. Custodian, Special Court Act (293 ITR 369) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax