https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277523 ITAT Pune held that deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) was not allowable in the manner claimed by the co-operative bank without rural branches, as the clause was applied as a composite provision under binding precedent. It further held that interest on non-performing asset accounts did not accrue for tax purposes where RBI prudential norms deferred recognition until receipt, so the amount was not taxable on accrual basis. The tribunal also allowed amortisation of premium on Government securities held in the HTM category, following the assessee's own earlier year decision on identical facts. The appeal therefore succeeded only in part. en-us Fri, 29 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Dec 2018 06:50:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277523 ITAT Pune held that deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) was not allowable in the manner claimed by the co-operative bank without rural branches, as the clause was applied as a composite provision under binding precedent. It further held that interest on non-performing asset accounts did not accrue for tax purposes where RBI prudential norms deferred recognition until receipt, so the amount was not taxable on accrual basis. The tribunal also allowed amortisation of premium on Government securities held in the HTM category, following the assessee's own earlier year decision on identical facts. The appeal therefore succeeded only in part. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277523