https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57560 The Commissioner could not invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 263 over the bank's deduction claim because the first appellate authority had already considered and allowed the same issue, and a matter merged in appeal is outside revision. The revisional order was therefore without jurisdiction and quashed. On merits, section 36(1)(viia) permits a statutory deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts made by eligible banks, while section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2)(v) operate only to prevent double deduction on a later write-off. As the bank had made the qualifying provision and had not claimed duplicate relief, the deduction was rightly allowable and the disallowance was unjustified. en-us Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 21:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57560 The Commissioner could not invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 263 over the bank's deduction claim because the first appellate authority had already considered and allowed the same issue, and a matter merged in appeal is outside revision. The revisional order was therefore without jurisdiction and quashed. On merits, section 36(1)(viia) permits a statutory deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts made by eligible banks, while section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2)(v) operate only to prevent double deduction on a later write-off. As the bank had made the qualifying provision and had not claimed duplicate relief, the deduction was rightly allowable and the disallowance was unjustified. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57560