Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT

261 ITR 708High Court2003#4101 most cited

What is Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT authority for?

Amendments to Section 36(1)(viii) are prospective, meaning deductions allowed for amounts transferred to a special reserve prior to the amendment, and subsequently withdrawn, cannot be subjected to tax for assessment years prior to the amendment's effective date.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kerala Financial Corporation v CIT · 261 ITR 708 · section 36(1)(viii) · special reserve · amendments · prospective · withdrawn amounts · assessment years prior

Also reported as

4 SCC 375

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 115USection 14ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 80absection 54esection 70(2)section 10(15)section 80msection 10(33)section 14a(1)section 54eclong-term capital assetsection 36(1)(viii)section 111a

Judgments citing Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

ITA 2980/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate a

…1.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) pri…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2665/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)

…1.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) pri…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED (MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below:\n\nSr

ITA 2597/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

….1998 \ncannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal \nbefore the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on \nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala \nFinancial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the \nHon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be \napplicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that \nthe same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It \nthus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts \ntransferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2049/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…to 31.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) prior to…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

ITA 2047/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

….1998 \ncannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal \nbefore the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on \nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala \nFinancial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the \nHon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be \napplicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that \nthe same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It \nthus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts \ntransferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2046/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…1.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) pri…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1890/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

…1.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) pri…

DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5110/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

….1998 \ncannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal \nbefore the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on \nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala \nFinancial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the \nHon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be \napplicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that \nthe same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It \nthus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts \ntransferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4983/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

…1.03.1998\ncannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal\nbefore the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on\nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala\nFinancial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the\nHon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be\napplicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that\nthe same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It\nthus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts\ntransferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) pri…

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

ITA 2861/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

….1998 \ncannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal \nbefore the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on \nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala \nFinancial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the \nHon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be \napplicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that \nthe same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It \nthus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts \ntransferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

ITA 2609/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

….1998 \ncannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal \nbefore the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on \nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala \nFinancial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the \nHon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be \napplicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that \nthe same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It \nthus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts \ntransferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii…

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground so raised for Assessment \nYear 2004-05 is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2326/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

….1998 \ncannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal \nbefore the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on \nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala \nFinancial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the \nHon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be \napplicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that \nthe same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It \nthus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts \ntransferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\n| Sr

ITA 2093/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

….1998 \ncannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal \nbefore the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on \nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala \nFinancial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the \nHon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be \napplicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that \nthe same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It \nthus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts \ntransferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…to 31.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) prior to…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…to 31.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) prior to…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4314/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…to 31.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) prior to…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…to 31.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) prior to…

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…to 31.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) prior to…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4315/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…1.03.1998 cannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be applicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that the same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It thus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts transferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii) pri…

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

ITA 4161/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

….1998 \ncannot be subjected to tax under the amended provisions. On appeal \nbefore the ld. CIT(A), the said claim was accepted by placing reliance on \nthe decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala \nFinancial Corporation vs. CIT, [2003] 261 ITR 708 (Ker), wherein the \nHon'ble Court held that amendments were prospective and would be \napplicable for Assessment Year 1998-99 and thereafter and also that \nthe same cannot be applied for the Assessment Years prior thereto. It \nthus, held that deduction which has been allowed in respect to amounts \ntransferred to special reserve u/s.36(1)(viii…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT (261 ITR 708) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax