Deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only prevents double deduction.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia)(c), 158A, 250 - Deduction of bad debts - Provision for bad and doubtful debts - Disallowance of bad debts written off - Double deduction - Lease premium amortization - Question of law pending before High Court.

(B) Interplay between deduction under sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) - The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) restricts the deduction for bad debts written off to the extent it exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under section 36(1)(viia) - This prevents double deduction - Where there is no credit balance in the provision account, the whole of the bad debts written off is deductible under section 36(1)(vii). (Paras 8, 9, 10)

(C) Section 158A - Where a question of law is pending before the High Court in assessee’s own case for an earlier year, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal for subsequent years by directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available. (Paras 15-18)

(D) Appellate principles - Mere pendency of an appeal before a higher judicial forum does not alter the binding nature of a coordinate bench decision unless it has been overruled or stayed. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: 1. Whether the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) restricts the deduction for bad debts written off where the assessee has already claimed deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, resulting in double deduction. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate amortization of lease premium as revenue expenditure.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The interplay between sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) allows deduction under both sections, but the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) limits the deduction for actual bad debts to the extent it exceeds the credit balance in the provision account made under section 36(1)(viia), thereby preventing double deduction. Where the credit balance is nil, the entire bad debt written off is deductible. (Paras 8, 9, 10) 2. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding unless overruled or stayed; mere pendency of appeal does not alter its effect. (Para 9) 3. Under section 158A, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals for assessment years where a similar question of law is pending before the High Court, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision. (Paras 17-18)

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21)

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: 1. Whether the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) restricts the deduction for bad debts written off where the assessee has already claimed deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, resulting in double deduction. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate amortization of lease premium as revenue expenditure.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The interplay between sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) allows deduction under both sections, but the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) limits the deduction for actual bad debts to the extent it exceeds the credit balance in the provision account made under section 36(1)(viia), thereby preventing double deduction. Where the credit balance is nil, the entire bad debt written off is deductible. (Paras 8, 9, 10) 2. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding unless overruled or stayed; mere pendency of appeal does not alter its effect. (Para 9) 3. Under section 158A, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals for assessment years where a similar question of law is pending before the High Court, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision. (Paras 17-18)

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21)

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21)

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether the claim for amortization of lease premium could be dealt with under section 158A pending a High Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only applies to prevent double deduction. The coordinate bench’s decision is binding. For pending questions of law, the Tribunal may dispose of appeals under section 158A pending final High Court decision.

Result: Revenue’s appeals dismissed; assessee’s appeals allowed for statistical purposes. (Para 21) Keywords: Bad debts written off, provision for bad and doubtful debts, double deduction, statistical purposes, pending question of law, lease premium amortization, revenue expenditure, binding precedent, coordinate bench, deduction restriction.

Facts of the case:
These cross appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The assessee, a public financial institution, claimed deductions under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the bad debts written off (Rs.85,27,45,662 for AY 2022-23 and Rs.158,97,03,104 for AY 2023-24), invoking the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) on the ground that the assessee had already claimed deduction for the provision under section 36(1)(viia) in earlier years, leading to potential double deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal’s earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case. The assessee also appealed against the disallowance of a claim for proportionate amortization of lease premium paid to a regional development authority, which was pending before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the bad debts issue, holding that the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(vii) was not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account and that there was no duplication of claim between the two sections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT and the coordinate bench’s consistent decisions for earlier years. On the lease premium issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s application under section 158A, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the final decision of the High Court when it becomes available.

Issues: The main issues were whether the disallowance of bad debts written off under section 36(1)(vii) by invoking the proviso to that section was correct, and whether

ORDER

PER BENCH:

The cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue have been filed against the separate impugned orders of even date 13.11.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24.

2. Since all the appeals pertained to the same assessee, involving similar issues arising out of a similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the cross appeal for the assessment year 2022-23 is considered as a lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the cross appeal for the assessment year 2023-24.

ITA No.781/Mum/2026

Revenue’s Appeal – A.Y. 2022-23

3. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: -

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.85,27,45,662/ - made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, without proper appreciation of the statutory conditions prescribed under the proviso to section 36(1)(vii)"

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on earlier decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case without independently verifying the factual correctness of the provision for bad and doubtful debts account, including the availability of credit balance required for application of the proviso to section 36(1)(vii)."

3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that allowing deduction of bad debts written off, where deduction for provision had already been granted in earlier years under section 36(1)(viia)(c) results in a double deduction, contrary to the intent of the statute."

4. The solitary grievance of the Revenue is against the deletion of the disallowance made under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act.

5. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public financial institution, engaged in the business of functioning as a Principal Financial Institution for promotion, financing and development of MSME and to coordinate the functions of Institutions engaged in similar activities. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 17.10.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.1582,93,83,960/- and had revised the return of income on 27.12.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.1572,06,03,390/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. Vide order dated 29.03.2024 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) disallowed the deduction of bad debts written off by the assessee under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act to an extent of Rs.85,27,45,662/- being the provision of bad and doubtful debts allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(viia) for the previous assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2021-22. In this regard, the AO invoked the provisions of the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in preceding year, deleted the disallowance of Rs.85,27,45,662/- made by the AO and held that the whole of the bad debts written off would be deductible under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us.

6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset, submitted that this issue is recurring in nature and has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in preceding years.

7. On the othe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 10990

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA MUMBAI – AppellantVersusDCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3)1 MUMBAI MUMBAI – RespondentITA 9172/MUM/2025[2022-23]

Deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) is not restricted by the proviso where there is no credit balance in the provision account under section 36(1)(viia), as both deductions are distinct and the proviso only prevents double deduction.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3)1 MUMBAI MUMBAI – Respondent
ITA 9172/MUM/2025[2022-23]