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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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