Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1996) 01 SC CK 0116

Kerala Financial Corporation etc. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 11 January 1996 · Citation: (1996) 1 AD 638 : AIR 1996 SC 996 : AIR 1995 SC 996 : (1996) 1 BC 475 : (1996) 131 CTR 75 : (1996) 218 ITR 159 : (1996) 21 ITR 159 : (1996) 1 JT 400 : (1996) 1 SCALE 207 : (1996) 2 SCC 536 : (1996) 1 SCR 365 : (1996) 84 TAXMAN 613

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldip Singh, J · B. L. Hansaria, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No''s. 1 to 6 In Civil Appeals No''s. 4636 to 4641 of 1994.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 258 words
1.

These applications are by the respondent (revenue) in the afore noted appeals, which were disposed of by judgment dated May 12, 1994. It has been averred in these petitions that what was held in paras 9 to 15 of the judgment is not consistent with what was decided by the majority in State Bank of Travancore Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, , which view was followed while disposing of the appeals. This stand has been taken because what the majority had held in the aforesaid case was that in cases of 'sticky advances' what could really be done is that on the assessee writing off the advances, the same would become bad debt and could be so dealt by the assessee as permitted by the relevant section of the Income Tax Act. In aforesaid paras, however, it came to be stated that on the advances become bad debts, refund of tax paid on the interest could be claimed by the assessee in accordance with law. It is apparent that the majority in State Bank of Travancore had not said so. This is not disputed by Shri Poti who had appeared for the appellants.

2.

It is accordingly stated that the observation made relating to refund of tax in the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment would stand deleted. Instead, we state on the advances being written off, steps could be taken by the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act relatable to bad debts.

3.

The applications are disposed of with these observations.