https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328153 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the provision for Non-Performing Assets (NPA) cannot be equated with the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed as they failed to establish that the provision made was for bad and doubtful debts as required by the Act. The order was pronounced on May 6, 2016, in Chennai. en-us Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 May 2016 10:11:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328153 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the provision for Non-Performing Assets (NPA) cannot be equated with the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed as they failed to establish that the provision made was for bad and doubtful debts as required by the Act. The order was pronounced on May 6, 2016, in Chennai. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328153