https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93735 ITAT affirmed that the assessee is entitled to deductions under both s.36(1)(vii) and s.36(1)(viia)(c), holding the proviso to s.36(1)(vii) merely caps bad-debt write-offs by the credit balance in provisions to prevent double deduction; factual review showed no excess or duplication, so CIT(A)'s allowance was upheld. On s.14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to confine disallowance to the assessee's suo-motu pro-rata allocation to investment-department costs, rejecting the AO's challenge absent specific contrary accounting findings. Deductions under s.36(1)(viii) were held independent of s.36(1)(viia)(c) computations. The amortised rent issue was remitted to the AO for reconsideration under s.158A upon Form-8 compliance. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93735 ITAT affirmed that the assessee is entitled to deductions under both s.36(1)(vii) and s.36(1)(viia)(c), holding the proviso to s.36(1)(vii) merely caps bad-debt write-offs by the credit balance in provisions to prevent double deduction; factual review showed no excess or duplication, so CIT(A)'s allowance was upheld. On s.14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to confine disallowance to the assessee's suo-motu pro-rata allocation to investment-department costs, rejecting the AO's challenge absent specific contrary accounting findings. Deductions under s.36(1)(viii) were held independent of s.36(1)(viia)(c) computations. The amortised rent issue was remitted to the AO for reconsideration under s.158A upon Form-8 compliance. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:13 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93735