https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371913 The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, affirming that the write-off claimed by the appellant was not complete as per Section 36(1)(vii) and (viia). The Court clarified the distinction between written-off bad debts and provisions, emphasizing statutory requirements for deductions. The Court applied the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) for Banks in the assessment for the year 1994-95, limiting the deduction based on specific statutory provisions. The appeals were dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371913 The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, affirming that the write-off claimed by the appellant was not complete as per Section 36(1)(vii) and (viia). The Court clarified the distinction between written-off bad debts and provisions, emphasizing statutory requirements for deductions. The Court applied the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) for Banks in the assessment for the year 1994-95, limiting the deduction based on specific statutory provisions. The appeals were dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371913