Bad debt provisions cannot be deducted as trading losses when amended deduction rules and accounts do not support write-off.

Amounts set aside as provisions for bad and doubtful debts were not deductible after the Explanation to section 36, so relief under sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) was refused. The assessee could not then recharacterise the same sums as trading losses under sections 28 and 29, because the accounts did not show an actual write-off or trading loss and the amended deduction rule could not be bypassed through a general business-loss claim. On that reasoning, the substantive appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of provisions made for bad and doubtful debts under sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether such amounts could alternatively be claimed as trading losses under sections 28 and 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of provisions made for bad and doubtful debts under sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The provisions in question represented amounts set aside for bad and doubtful debts. After the insertion of the Explanation to section 36, such provisions were not allowable as deductions. The authorities below had correctly applied sections 36(2) and 36(1)(vii) and rightly declined relief.

Conclusion: The claim for deduction under sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) was rejected and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether such amounts could alternatively be claimed as trading losses under sections 28 and 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The attempt to recast the disallowed provisions as trading losses was not accepted. The amounts had not been written off as bad debts in a manner that could justify allowance, and section 28 or section 29 could not be used to bypass the amendment to section 36(1)(vii). The accounts also did not reflect the amounts as trading losses.

Conclusion: The alternative claim as trading loss failed and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive grounds and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific disallowance created by amendment to the deduction provision cannot be defeated by recharacterising the same amount under a general head of business loss where the accounts and facts do not support such treatment.

---