non-obstante clause - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court modified its earlier order concerning forest land regularization. It declined to exempt small fragmented land parcels from being declared as protected forest but clarified the state could utilize them for purposes under Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, following due procedure. The Court also allowed a one-time exemption for pre-December 1996 encroachments on specified categories of land, as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from the landmark Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India case (W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995), which deals extensively with forest conservation across India. Within this ongoing litigation, an Interim Application (I.A. No.12465/2019) was filed concerning the classification and treatme...

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The key legal question was whether the detailed procedure and timelines under Section 144C for eligible assessees operate within or in addition to the limitation period prescribed under Sections 153 for passing assessment orders. The divergence of opinion led to the matter being referred to a larger bench for final determination. Facts Of The Case: The case involved several foreign companies, including Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., engaged in oil exploration in India. For Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2018-19, the companies filed returns declaring losses. Their cases were selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officers passed draft assessment orders ...

Tag: non-obstante clause

Supreme Court Modifies Order: Pre-1996 Encroachments on Forest Land Spared from Eviction

Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153