STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1860/1973Supreme Court[1986] 1 S.C.R. 2508 January 1986Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: V.D. TULZAPURKAR, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, RANGANATH MISRA69 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, dismissed the appeals. Regarding the first issue, the Court held that while the concept of 'real income' is recognized, it cannot be invoked to defeat the clear provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized that income accrues when it falls due and becomes legally recoverable, irrespective of actual receipt. The act of debiting the borrower's account and crediting interest to a suspense account, without reversing the debit, is evidence of accrual. The Court noted that Section 36(2) covers bad debts, and the concept of real income should be applied with circumspection and not to circumvent fundamental principles of income-tax law. The Court found that the High Court's decision that interest on sticky advances had accrued and was taxable was correct. Regarding the second issue, the Court agreed with the High Court that the profit from exchange differences was taxable and not casual or non-recurring. The appeals were dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee, State Bank of Travancore, a subsidiary of State Bank of India, followed the mercantile system of accounting for the assessment years 1964, 1965, and 1966. It treated interest on 'sticky advances' (advances doubtful of recovery) by debiting the parties but crediting the amount to an 'Interest Suspense Account' instead of the Profit & Loss Account. For Assessment Year 1967-68, the assessee claimed profit from exchange differences on devaluation of the Indian Rupee, which was credited to a 'Provision for Contingencies' account, was not taxable as it was casual and non-recurring. The Income-tax authorities, Tribunal, and High Court rejected these claims.

What were the issues?

1. Whether interest on 'sticky advances', though debited to the borrowers' accounts, should be taxed as income when it is highly improbable that the principal amount itself is recoverable, considering the concept of 'real income' and the practice of crediting such interest to an 'Interest Suspense Account' (Section 28, 29, 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? - Assessee's contention: Interest on sticky advances is not 'real income' and therefore not taxable. The practice of crediting to 'Interest Suspense Account' is consistent with mercantile accounting and business realities, as it reflects hypothetical income. Reliance on past circulars from the Central Board of Revenue and Reserve Bank of India recognizing this distinction. - Revenue's contention: Income accrues when it falls due and becomes legally recoverable, irrespective of actual receipt. Under the mercantile system, debiting the borrower's account signifies accrual. The concept of 'real income' cannot be used to defeat statutory provisions. Section 36(1)(vii) provides for deduction of bad debts, not for excluding accrued interest from tax. 2. Whether profit arising from exchange differences on devaluation of the Indian Rupee, credited to a 'Provision for Contingencies' account, is taxable as income, or if it is casual and non-recurring in nature (Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? - Assessee's contention: The profit from exchange differences is casual and non-recurring, hence not taxable. - Revenue's contention: Exchange differences arising from the conversion of foreign currency balances are income arising from business transactions and are taxable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28,Section 29,Section 145,Section 36(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 225 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

- ' _, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA JANUARY 8, 1986 [V, D, TULZAPURKAR, SABYASACIU MUKHARJI AND RANGAl'IATH MISRA, JJ, ] Income Tax Act, 1961: 25 Sections 28, 29 & 145 - Banking Company - Advances con- sidered doubtful of recovery-interest on such 'sticky' advan- ces not carried in 'Profit and Loss Account' - Credited to separate account - 'Interest suspense ac;count' - Accrual of income - Whether arises - Interest amount - Whether exemption frorn tax. - Concept and notion of real income - Explained.

Hethod of account;i.ng - How far relevant for computa- tion of income, prof.its and gains - Mercantile and cash systems of accounting - Oif fererice between.

Devaluation of Indian Rupee - Exchange difference aris- ing therefrom - Whether income assessable to tax.

The assessee, a subsidiary bank of the State Bank of India, used to maintain in the accounting years 1964, 1965 and 1966, its accounts in mercantile system making entries and calculating income and loss on accrual basis and adopted the calendar year as its previous year. The assessee, in the course of its banking business, used to charge interest on ~.. advances consider

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 28

All 1,686 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →