Google+ Badge

Translate

What reforms are needed in our Direct taxation regim?

Follow me by Email

A GOOD CA IS A BOON TO BUSINESS

We give expert advice for your safe business

Followers

GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, INCOME TAX, FEMA FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT PMLA, VAT, EXCISE and CUSTOM CASES, DRI, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ESI, EPF, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES, APPEALS TO TRIBUNALS AND HIGH COURT, SUPREME COURT, INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL COURT IN AMERICA ETC.

Blog Archive

Search This Blog www.cagauravdhall.com CA GAURAV DHALL LEADING CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FIRM INDIA

Featured Post

New version of GSTR-4 offline tools (V2.1) is now available on GST portal

New version of GSTR-4 offline tools (V2.1) is now available on GST portal 10/04/2018 For preparing your GSTR-4 for the 4th...

Friday, April 6, 2012

36(1)(vii)/36(1)(viia) Bad Debts: Banks are entitled to both deductions


The Supreme Court had to consider whether a bank was eligible to claim a deduction for bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of its (rural & urban) advances and also claim a provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) in respect of its rural advances in view of the Proviso to s. 36(1)(vii) which provides that only the excess over the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made u/s 36(1)(viia) can be claimed. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. Catholic Syrian Bank 88 ITD 185 held that as s. 36(1)(viia) was confined to rural advances, a claim for bad debts of urban advances was not subject to the limitation of the Proviso to s. 36(1)(vii). However, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court took a contrary view in CIT vs. South Indian Bank 233 CTR 214 (Ker) (FB) and held that a bank was entitled to claim deduction of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) only to extent it exceeded the provision allowed as deduction under s. 36(1) (viia). On appeal to the Supreme Court, HELD reversing the Full Bench of the High Court:

0 comments: