https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181687 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the bad debt claim disallowed by the Tribunal was justified. Emphasizing the legislative intent to encourage rural advances, the Court clarified that deductions under Section 36(1)(vii) should not be nullified by limitations in Section 36(1)(viia) to avoid double deductions. The decision highlighted that Section 36(1)(vii) applies to all banks, irrespective of their nature, and should not be restricted by Section 36(1)(viia). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee, ensuring the availability of deductions for bad debts related to rural branches. en-us Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:36:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181687 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the bad debt claim disallowed by the Tribunal was justified. Emphasizing the legislative intent to encourage rural advances, the Court clarified that deductions under Section 36(1)(vii) should not be nullified by limitations in Section 36(1)(viia) to avoid double deductions. The decision highlighted that Section 36(1)(vii) applies to all banks, irrespective of their nature, and should not be restricted by Section 36(1)(viia). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee, ensuring the availability of deductions for bad debts related to rural branches. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181687