What is State Bank of Travancore v. CIT authority for?

Under the mercantile system of accounting, interest income accrues and is taxable in the year it arises, even for "sticky" or doubtful loans, as the right to receive the income is paramount, not its actual receipt, provided there is an agreement for payment.

How many judgments cite State Bank of Travancore v. CIT?

222 judgments on BharatTax cite State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (158 ITR 102), spanning 1999 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does State Bank of Travancore v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 37(1), Section 115JB, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 147.

State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (158 ITR 102)

Ircon International Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-11

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1825/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 80HSection 80I

…ahakari Mandali Ltd., 253 ITR 97 where it has been held that an amount which is subject matter of dispute cannot be said to have accrued to the appellant and can be taxed only when the dispute is settled. (vi) In the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT, 158 ITR 102, the principle of real income has been laid. (vii) Reliance has also been placed on the case of Anoop Engineering Ltd. Vs. CIT, 247 ITR 457 where it has been held that for the purpose of ITA Nos. 1825/Del/2005, 705/Del/2006 & 3804/Del/2008 AND ITA Nos. 69 2234/Del/2005 & 3805/Del/2008 ascertaining whether income had accrued to the assessee one…

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 5434/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5434/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Lic Housing Finance Limited Dcit-Circle -2(2) 2Nd Floor, Bombay Life Bldg. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg 45/47 Veer Nariman Road Mumbai- 400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 023. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-5375-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5435/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06) Lic Housing Finance Limited Dcit-Circle -2(2) 2Nd Floor, Bombay Life Bldg. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg 45/47 Veer Nariman Road Mumbai- 400 020. Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 023. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-5375-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri H.P. Mahajani- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Anadi Varma - Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 30/07/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma - Ld. CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(viii)

…the assessee until it is actually recovered." 19. On the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore (supra), the Court held as follows : "The first decision is the majority judgment in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102, decided by a Bench of three judges of this court by a majority of two to one. This judgment directly deals with interest on "sticky advances" which have been debited to the customer but taken to the interest suspense account by a banking company. The majority judgment has referred to the circular of October 6, 1952, and its withdrawal by the sec…

M/S. Trust Marketing, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 27(1)(a)Section 41(1)

…onsideration. For a similar conclusion, reference was made to Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) wherein it was held that income tax is a tax on real income. 25. Finally a reference was made to State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102/24 Taxman 337 (SC) wherein the majority view was that accrual of income must be real, taking into account the actuality of the situation; 16 M/s. Trust Marketing, Jaipur. whether the accrual had taken place or not must, in appropriate cases, be judged on the principles of real income theory. The majority opinion went on to say: 'What has really…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1316/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…TR 66, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144, H.M.Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706, Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521, Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, [1971] 82 ITR 835, State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC), Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1997] 225 ITR 746 held that the assessee is taxable for interest on securities only on specified dates when it becomes due for payment, in view of third proviso to Section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years. 4.2. In view of the ratio laid do…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1315/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…TR 66, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144, H.M.Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706, Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521, Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, [1971] 82 ITR 835, State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC), Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1997] 225 ITR 746 held that the assessee is taxable for interest on securities only on specified dates when it becomes due for payment, in view of third proviso to Section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years. 4.2. In view of the ratio laid do…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1130/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…TR 66, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144, H.M.Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706, Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521, Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, [1971] 82 ITR 835, State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC), Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1997] 225 ITR 746 held that the assessee is taxable for interest on securities only on specified dates when it becomes due for payment, in view of third proviso to Section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years. 4.2. In view of the ratio laid do…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1129/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…TR 66, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144, H.M.Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706, Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521, Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, [1971] 82 ITR 835, State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC), Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1997] 225 ITR 746 held that the assessee is taxable for interest on securities only on specified dates when it becomes due for payment, in view of third proviso to Section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years. 4.2. In view of the ratio laid do…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. The Kalupur Commercial Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and all Tax Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1864/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…n of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C1T Vs Shiv Prakash Janak Raj and Co Pvt Ltd 222 ITR 583 where the Apex Court had an occasion to examine the concept of real income and review the case law on the subject and held under: In slate Bank of Trauancore. V CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102/24 Taxman 337(SC), this court held that the interest on sticky advances did accrue to the assessee bank according to the mercantile system of accounting and that, indeed the assessee had debited the respective parties with interest. The appellant, however did not choose to treat the debt as bad debts but carried, the interest amount to the intere…

Mdlr Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8215/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…tted that taxability of sum received by firm is neither a determinative and nor a conclusive consideration to determine the taxability of the sum received by partner from firm :- 1) Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) 2) State bank of Travancore Vs. CIT 158 ITR 102 (SC) 3) Income Tax Officer Vs. Ch. Atchaiah 218 ITR 239 (SC) 4) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 19. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dynamic Enterprises he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where retiring partner took cash towards value of…

Mdlr Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8214/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…tted that taxability of sum received by firm is neither a determinative and nor a conclusive consideration to determine the taxability of the sum received by partner from firm :- 1) Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) 2) State bank of Travancore Vs. CIT 158 ITR 102 (SC) 3) Income Tax Officer Vs. Ch. Atchaiah 218 ITR 239 (SC) 4) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 19. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dynamic Enterprises he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where retiring partner took cash towards value of…