https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416659 Deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) was confined to the provision actually created and debited in the relevant year's books; any later make-up could not enlarge the year's deduction. The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) was treated as limited to rural advances covered by section 36(1)(viia), so it could not be used to deny bad-debt claims relating to non-rural advances. The disallowance under section 14A and the MAT issues under section 115JB, including provision for funded interest term loan, were remitted for fresh consideration. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for ATM usage charges was upheld as unwarranted on the facts. en-us Mon, 27 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:54:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416659 Deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) was confined to the provision actually created and debited in the relevant year's books; any later make-up could not enlarge the year's deduction. The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) was treated as limited to rural advances covered by section 36(1)(viia), so it could not be used to deny bad-debt claims relating to non-rural advances. The disallowance under section 14A and the MAT issues under section 115JB, including provision for funded interest term loan, were remitted for fresh consideration. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for ATM usage charges was upheld as unwarranted on the facts. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416659