Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
    The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
    A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
    The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
    The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
    The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
    The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 31 "Deduction for bad debt and provision for bad and doubtful debt" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      21 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 31 Deduction for bad debt and provision for bad and doubtful debt.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

        At a Glance

        Clause 31(Old Version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 sets out when provisions for bad and doubtful debts and actual bad debts written off are allowable as deductions u/s 26 (Profits and gains of business or profession). It prescribes differential percentage limits for specified classes of financial institutions and banks, conditions for write-off claims, and rules on a single provision account. The provision principally affects banking and financial-sector assessees and taxpayers engaged in money-lending; effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

        Background & Scope

        Statutory hooks: Clause 31 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Profits and gains of business or profession). The clause addresses deductions in computing business/professional income for (i) provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by specified assessees and (ii) amounts of bad debt written off as irrecoverable.

        Coverage: The clause distinguishes classes of assessees-scheduled and non-scheduled banks, cooperative banks (with exclusions), foreign banks, public financial institutions, State Financial Corporations/Industrial Investment Corporations, and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs)-and prescribes the maximum deductible amounts for provisions. It also sets conditions for when a written-off bad debt qualifies as a deduction and provides rules on the accounting treatment necessary to claim the deduction.

        Definitions/explanations: The text itself defines the qualifying assessees and specifies the percentage limits; no further definitions (e.g., of "total income" or "aggregate average advances") are provided within the clause. "Not stated in the document." regarding any definitions beyond those included.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        The Old Version operates on two distinct but related heads:

        • Sub-section (1): Permits specified assessees to claim as a deduction a stated percentage of their total income (computed before certain deductions) as provisions for bad and doubtful debts. For scheduled banks, non-scheduled banks and most co-operative banks the limit is "not more than 8.5% of the total income of the tax year computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIII" plus "an additional amount up to 10% of the aggregate average advances made by rural branches computed in the manner as prescribed." An elective additional amount (income from redemption of securities under a Central Government scheme) is allowed up to income disclosed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" for scheduled and non-scheduled banks. For foreign banks, public financial institutions, State Financial Corporations/Industrial Investment Corporations, and NBFCs the limit is "not more than 5% of the total income" computed similarly.
        • Sub-sections (2) and (3): Set out when amounts written off as irrecoverable are deductible, subject to conditions. Important ingredients include (a) previous inclusion in computing income or being money lent in ordinary course of banking/money-lending business; (b) recovery treatment where partial recovery occurs; and (c) for assessees claiming the sub-section (1) provision the deduction of written-off amounts is restricted to amounts exceeding the credit balance in the provision account and is allowed only when the assessee has debited the relevant amount to that provision account. Sub-section (3) clarifies that a written-off bad debt does not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt and treats certain unrecorded amounts taken into account under specified accounting standards as deemed written off for purposes of sub-section (2).

        Interpretation

        The legislative text signals an intent to allow specified financial sector entities predictable, percentage-based deductions for provisioning while tightly linking actual write-offs to account entries and prior income computation. The clause distinguishes between a statutory headroom for provisions (sub-section (1)) and the separate deduction of actual irrecoverable debts (sub-section (2)), thereby preserving the primacy of book/accounting entries and prior tax treatment. The limitation that deductible written-off amounts cannot duplicate amounts already provided for (credit balance in the provision account) aims to prevent double dipping.

        Exceptions/Provisos

        Notable carve-outs and conditions in the Old Version:

        • Co-operative banks: exclusions for primary agricultural credit societies and primary co-operative agricultural and rural development banks from the cooperative-bank category in (1)(c) - these are not eligible under that clause.
        • Elective additional amount for scheduled and non-scheduled banks limited to income from the redemption of securities under a Central Government scheme and only where disclosed under the specified head.
        • Deduction of written-off bad debts for assessees using the provision in sub-section (1) is confined to amounts exceeding the credit balance in the provision account and must correspond to debits to that same account in the tax year.

        Illustrations

        • Example 1: A scheduled bank with total income (pre-deduction) of INR 100 crore may claim a provision deduction up to INR 8.5 crore; if it has rural branches with aggregate average advances such that 10% of those advances equals INR 2 crore, it may additionally claim up to INR 2 crore as provided under the rural-branch head (subject to manner of computation prescribed).
        • Example 2: An NBFC with total income (pre-deduction) of INR 10 crore may claim provisions up to INR 0.5 crore (5%). If it writes off a specific debt of INR 30 lakh as irrecoverable in the year and that debt had not been covered by the provision account (i.e., exceeds the credit balance), then the write-off may be claimed as a deduction subject to the conditions of sub-section (2).

        Interplay

        The Old Version expressly references "income computation and disclosure standards notified u/s 276(2)" for treatment of certain items not recorded in accounts; no other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are cited within the clause. Interaction points: the clause implicitly interacts with accounting practices and other provisions governing total income computation (e.g., Chapter VIII references), and with any Central Government scheme that generates income from redemption of securities referred to in sub-section (1)(1)(b). Specific cross-references are limited to section 276(2) and Chapter VIII; further interactions are "Not stated in the document."

        Differences between Section 31[As Passed] and Clause 31 (Old Version)

        • Prescription phrasing for rural-branch advance computation: The As Passed version uses the phrase "computed in the manner as may be prescribed" while the Old Version uses "computed in the manner as prescribed."
          • Practical impact: The As Passed language is marginally more clearly enabling of future subordinate legislation (explicitly permitting prescription); the Old Version's phrasing is functionally similar but marginally less explicit about rule-making power. This is a drafting nuance rather than a substantive policy change.
        • Wording on allowance conditional on debiting provision account: The As Passed text (sub-section (2)(c)(ii)) specifies "such amount shall be allowed only when the assessee has debited any amount of bad debt or part thereof in that tax year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that sub-section." The Old Version (clause (2)(c)(ii)) states "it shall be allowed only when the assessee has debited such amount in that tax year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that sub-section."
          • Practical impact: The As Passed wording explicitly links the allowance to debiting "any amount of bad debt or part thereof" and thereby clarifies that an actual debit of bad debt to the provision account (not merely an arbitrary entry) is necessary. The Old Version's "such amount" could be read more narrowly or more circularly; the As Passed wording reduces interpretive ambiguity.
        • Single-account requirement placement and wording: In the Old Version the requirement for a single account appears as clause (2)(d): "the account referred to in clause (c) shall be only one such account..." In the As Passed version this is integrated as (2)(c)(iii): "the aforesaid account shall be only one such account under sub-section (1) and such account shall be related to all types of advances, including advances made by rural branches."
          • Practical impact: The As Passed language more tightly links the single-account rule to the other clauses in (2)(c) and adds the explicit phrase "aforesaid account" and the explicit inclusion of rural branches in the same provision; functionally the Old Version already required a single account but the As Passed improves cohesion and clarity.
        • Correction of terminology in sub-section (3)(b): The Old Version uses the term "irrevocable" in one place ("becomes irrevocable") whereas the As Passed uses "irrecoverable."
          • Practical impact: This appears to be a corrective editorial change to align terminology with the rest of the section (which consistently uses "irrecoverable" elsewhere). The change avoids potential confusion; it does not appear to alter substantive scope where "irrecoverable" is intended.
        • Minor introductory phrasing: The Old Version's heading to sub-section (3) reads "For the purposes of this sub-section (2)," while the As Passed reads "For the purposes of sub-section (2)," - a minor drafting harmonisation without substantive effect.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: Financial institutions must maintain a single provision-for-bad-and-doubtful-debts account (covering all advances) and must ensure that debits to that account in the relevant tax year align with claimed deductions for written-off debts. Failure to maintain the single account or to debit the account appropriately may result in disallowance of write-off deductions. The elective additional amounts (rural branch advance percentage; redemption income) require documentation and disclosure in the return of income.
        • Record-keeping/evidence points: The text requires debiting of amounts to the provision account and prior inclusion in income computation in earlier years or treatment under notified income computation standards; thus, contemporaneous accounting entries, reconciliations of the provision account, disclosure in the return of income, and records evidencing scheme redemptions (where the elective additional amount is claimed) will be material.

        Key Takeaways

        • Clause 31 (Old Version) separates a capped, percentage-based provision deduction for specified financial assessees from deduction for actual debts written off as irrecoverable.
        • Scheduled/non-scheduled banks and most cooperative banks get a higher provision ceiling (8.5% of pre-deduction total income) with a possible rural-branch add-on; foreign banks, PFIs, SFCs, SIICs and NBFCs are capped at 5%.
        • Actual bad-debt write-offs are deductible only if conditions are met: prior tax treatment/accounting alignment and, for those utilising sub-section (1), amounts must exceed the provision account credit and must have been debited to that account in the tax year.
        • The clause mandates a single provision account related to all advances, including rural branches.
        • The Old Version contains wording (e.g., "irrevocable") that the As Passed rectifies to "irrecoverable," and the As Passed improves clarity on certain conditions and prescription powers.

        Full Text:

        Section 31 Deduction for bad debt and provision for bad and doubtful debt.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax