https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181683 Deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) was contested on the ground that no provision for bad and doubtful debts was created; tribunal accepted that a banking entity's provision labelled as Provision for NPA is, in substance, a provision for bad and doubtful debts prepared under RBI guidelines and Banking Regulation Act requirements, and therefore qualifies for deduction under the provision. The tribunal set aside the adverse order and allowed the deduction, applying substance-over-form reasoning and recognising regulatory provisioning nomenclature. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181683 Deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) was contested on the ground that no provision for bad and doubtful debts was created; tribunal accepted that a banking entity's provision labelled as Provision for NPA is, in substance, a provision for bad and doubtful debts prepared under RBI guidelines and Banking Regulation Act requirements, and therefore qualifies for deduction under the provision. The tribunal set aside the adverse order and allowed the deduction, applying substance-over-form reasoning and recognising regulatory provisioning nomenclature. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181683