Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Yes Bank Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act towards Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable irrespective of rural advance and non-rural advances.
Facts- The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 were issued and complied with. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.03.2016, assessing total income at Rs.2,710,009,76,971/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief. Aggrieved, both the assessee and Revenue are before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Conclusion- Tribunal in identical issue held that for deductions u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act, the actual provision made in the books by the Assessee on account of Provision for bad and doubtful debts (PBDD) (irrespective of whether it is rural or non-rural) has to be seen. To the extent PBDD is so created, then subject to the permissible upper limits referred to above, the deduction has to be allowed to the Assessee. The question of bifurcating the PBDD as one relating to rural advances and other advances (Non-rural advances) does not arise for consideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
