https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301295 Non-rural bad debts actually written off were held deductible under section 36(1)(vii), because the proviso was treated as confined to rural advances and did not require prior adjustment against section 36(1)(viia) provision. The claim for deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) was linked to the creation of the provision in the books, subject to the statutory ceiling, and was upheld. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was set aside for fresh examination because the record did not show adequate verification of funds, voluntary disallowance, or recorded dissatisfaction. ATM usage charges were treated as not attracting section 194H, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not sustained. Applicability of section 115JB and related book-profit additions was restored for reconsideration. en-us Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:33:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301295 Non-rural bad debts actually written off were held deductible under section 36(1)(vii), because the proviso was treated as confined to rural advances and did not require prior adjustment against section 36(1)(viia) provision. The claim for deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) was linked to the creation of the provision in the books, subject to the statutory ceiling, and was upheld. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was set aside for fresh examination because the record did not show adequate verification of funds, voluntary disallowance, or recorded dissatisfaction. ATM usage charges were treated as not attracting section 194H, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not sustained. Applicability of section 115JB and related book-profit additions was restored for reconsideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301295