HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala v. South Indian Bank Ltd., Trichur
Civil Appeal No. 842 of 1964
[1966] 2 SCR 674 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 8, 16 and 60A · Central Government notification concerning specified tax-free Travancore and Cochin loans
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1956-57
01 · Facts of the case
For AY 1956-57 the bank received Rs. 44,720 interest on tax-free Cochin and Travancore securities and claimed relief on the whole amount. Revenue reduced the interest base by expenditure and borrowing interest. The Tribunal and High Court held that the notification protected gross interest; Revenue appealed.
Source: SCR p. 675 / PDF p. 2
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The notification had to be interpreted on its own terms, rather than restricted by section 8. It applied to interest on listed loans received within Travancore-Cochin and not brought into another part of the taxable territories; the interest remained included for section 16 purposes. Interest receivable meant the contractual security interest, without subtracting collection expense. Applicability of the notification to the securities was common ground.
Source: SCR pp. 676-677 / PDF pp. 3-4
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held that no income-tax was payable on the entire Rs. 44,720 of interest from the specified securities. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed with costs.
Source: SCR p. 677 / PDF p. 4
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the bank under the particular notification and its accepted conditions. This is not a general exemption for all bank securities interest or a decision of the unresolved section 8 interpretation.
Source: SCR pp. 676-677 / PDF pp. 3-4
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: obtain the operative notification, verify the instrument is listed and prove each territorial condition before computing relief. Do not import deductions from another provision into a self-contained exemption without examining its language. Keep this 1965 decision distinct from the bank’s 2021 litigation and from modern interest-deduction disputes.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 676-677 / PDF pp. 3-4
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full four-page SCR report read, separating editorial headnote from judicial reasoning; no neighbouring case text used.
- Full source read; page pinpoints used because judgment paragraphs are unnumbered. Exact original bytes match the catalogue SHA-256.
- Public eSCR mirror, not a certified court copy.
Statutory scope
This decision applies the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to the stated historical assessment years. Current statutory applicability and any Income-tax Act, 1961 or 2025 crosswalk are not determined.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Comprehensive subsequent treatment has not been verified; no current citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.