<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (10) TMI 1176 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272515</link>
    <description>A bank&#039;s provision for standard assets made in accordance with mandatory RBI prudential norms was treated as akin to provisioning for bad and doubtful debts, and therefore allowable in principle under the deduction scheme for banks. The Tribunal held that such a provision could not be disallowed merely because it was a prudential or notional entry, or characterised as capital or contingent expenditure. The disallowance was accordingly deleted in favour of the assessee, and the remaining ground was not pressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 1176 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272515</link>
      <description>A bank&#039;s provision for standard assets made in accordance with mandatory RBI prudential norms was treated as akin to provisioning for bad and doubtful debts, and therefore allowable in principle under the deduction scheme for banks. The Tribunal held that such a provision could not be disallowed merely because it was a prudential or notional entry, or characterised as capital or contingent expenditure. The disallowance was accordingly deleted in favour of the assessee, and the remaining ground was not pressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272515</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>