https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294141 Revision under section 263 cannot be used on an issue already adjudicated in first appeal, because the assessment merges with the appellate order to that extent. The assessee-bank's deduction claim under section 36(1)(viia) was also upheld because that provision for bad and doubtful debts operates separately from section 36(1)(vii) and does not require a distinct provision earmarked only for rural advances. The anti-double-deduction restriction is addressed by the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2)(v), so the statutory deduction remained allowable. en-us Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294141 Revision under section 263 cannot be used on an issue already adjudicated in first appeal, because the assessment merges with the appellate order to that extent. The assessee-bank's deduction claim under section 36(1)(viia) was also upheld because that provision for bad and doubtful debts operates separately from section 36(1)(vii) and does not require a distinct provision earmarked only for rural advances. The anti-double-deduction restriction is addressed by the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2)(v), so the statutory deduction remained allowable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294141