Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT

210 ITR 129Supreme Court of India1994#1787 most cited

What is Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT authority for?

CBDT circulars, instructions, or directions issued under Section 119 cannot override or detract from the provisions of the Income-tax Act, as a delegated authority lacks the power to amend law enacted by Parliament.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT · 210 ITR 129 · CBDT circulars · Section 119 · circulars cannot override Act · binding nature of instructions · delegated legislation · Section 194A · Section 201 · statutory provisions · tax administration

Sections most often in play

Section 194ASection 201(1A)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 201Section 194A(3)(v)Section 115BBESection 153B

Issues it is cited on

section 194a(v)section 194(3)(viia)(b)section 5(1)(cc)section 80p(i)section 194a(3)(viia)(b)section 194a(3)(viia)(a)section 194a(3)(i)(b)section 194(3)(v)section 194a(3)(i)section 132(5)section 132(2)section 194a(1)

Judgments citing Kerala Finance Corporation v. CIT

M/S Jasleen Education Society, Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/IND/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.82/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Jasleen Education Society Indore Pan – Aaaaj 1218L :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 2(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Indore Shri S.N. Agrawal & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra Shri Rajiv Jain राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 5.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…dered this issue and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 5. The learned DR has objected to the proposition of the assessee on the ground that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT (SC); 210 ITR 129(SC) it was decided that the Circular issued by CBDT in exercise of powers conferred by section 119 of the Act has no significance insofar as the point under consideration namely whether the circular can override or detract from the provisions of the Act is concerned, inasmuch as what section 119 has empowered is to issue orders, instructions…

ACIT Cen Cir 41, Mumbai vs. Solar Packaging P.Tld, Mumbai

ITA 3640/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 260A

…-आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/3640/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT, Central Circle-41 M/s. Solar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Room No.655, 6th Floor 301-302, Ashford Chambers Aayakar Bhavan…

Nec Hcl System Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we confirm the finding the of the CIT (A) regarding deletion of disallowance u/s 40a (i) of The Income tax Act of Rs

ITA 5497/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…section 119 of the Income-tax Act. As such, the circular would be binding on the Department. The other judgment on which reliance was placed by the Department was a judgment of a Bench of two judges of this court in Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 129, where this court, following the majority view in State Bank of Travancorev. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC), held that interest which had accrued on a “sticky” advance has to be treated as income of the assessee and taxable as such. It is said that ultimately, if the advance takes the shape of a bad debt, refund of the tax paid on the interest would…