https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75617 SC held that the bank was entitled to deduction under s.36(1)(vii) because it effected an actual write-off in its books by debiting Profit & Loss and reducing loans and advances/debtors on the asset side so balances stood net of provisions. The AO could not deny deduction merely on apprehension of double claims; if necessary, the AO may seek individual debtor details where reasonable belief of double claim exists. Requiring closure of individual debtor accounts could undermine pending recovery suits, so closure is not an absolute prerequisite. en-us Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Apr 2026 13:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75617 SC held that the bank was entitled to deduction under s.36(1)(vii) because it effected an actual write-off in its books by debiting Profit & Loss and reducing loans and advances/debtors on the asset side so balances stood net of provisions. The AO could not deny deduction merely on apprehension of double claims; if necessary, the AO may seek individual debtor details where reasonable belief of double claim exists. Requiring closure of individual debtor accounts could undermine pending recovery suits, so closure is not an absolute prerequisite. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75617