https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12710 The dominant issue was whether deduction for bad debts under s. 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act requires proof that the debt had actually become irrecoverable. The HC held that, post-amendment w.e.f. 1 April 1989, the statutory requirement is satisfied if the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts for the relevant previous year, subject to s. 36(2); the assessee need not separately establish actual badness, particularly where the genuineness of the write-off is not disputed. Consequently, the HC upheld the Tribunal's confirmation of deletion of the bad-debt addition and rejected the revenue's challenge as raising no substantial question of law. en-us Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12710 The dominant issue was whether deduction for bad debts under s. 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act requires proof that the debt had actually become irrecoverable. The HC held that, post-amendment w.e.f. 1 April 1989, the statutory requirement is satisfied if the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts for the relevant previous year, subject to s. 36(2); the assessee need not separately establish actual badness, particularly where the genuineness of the write-off is not disputed. Consequently, the HC upheld the Tribunal's confirmation of deletion of the bad-debt addition and rejected the revenue's challenge as raising no substantial question of law. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12710