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
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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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 LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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