My bank has a section 36(1)(viia) provision for rural advances. Does that provision cut down my deduction for urban bad debts actually written off under section 36(1)(vii)?
No. The Supreme Court held that the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) for a provision against rural advances is distinct and independent of the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) for a bad debt actually written off. The proviso to clause (vii), which limits the write-off deduction to the excess over the credit balance in the clause (viia) account, exists only to prevent double deduction, and can operate only where that risk exists - that is, in respect of rural advances. Where the debts written off arise out of urban advances, the allowance is not affected by the proviso at all. The banks' appeals were allowed and the Revenue's dismissed.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar; main judgment by Swatanter Kumar, J, with a concurring judgment by Kapadia, CJI) on 2012-02-17, reported as (2012) 343 ITR 270; AIR 2012 SC 1538; 2012 (2) SCALE 573; 2012 Tax LR 382. It bears on section 36(1)(vii), section 36(1)(viia), section 36(2), section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the settled Supreme Court authority on the interaction of the two clauses, and the harvested page records it as cited in 285 later decisions. Its practical effect for every scheduled bank is that a healthy clause (viia) provision does not eat into the deduction for genuine urban write-offs, which is what assessing officers had been holding. Two features of the reasoning are worth carrying into other arguments. The Court read the proviso by reference to the mischief it addresses - a provision inserted to protect the revenue against double deduction is meaningless where there is no threat of double deduction - and it declined to let a purposive relief for rural banking be neutralised by reading the limits of one clause into another. The Chief Justice's concurring judgment sets the same conclusion out compactly and is the shorter passage to cite.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
In the lead appeal a scheduled bank filed its return for assessment year 2002-03 on 24 October 2002 declaring income of Rs.61,15,610. The return was processed under section 143(1) and a refund issued, but the Assessing Officer then took the case up under section 143(2) and completed the assessment under section 143(3). The bank had claimed bad debts of Rs.12,65,95,770 written off, and separately held a provision for bad and doubtful debts of Rs.15,01,29,990 allowed under section 36(1)(viia). The officer rejected the argument that the two deductions are independent. Because the bad debts written off did not exceed the credit balance in the provision account, and because he took the view that clause (v) of section 36(2) was not satisfied, he disallowed the whole of the write-off and added it back, issuing a demand notice. The question that reached the Supreme Court, in a large batch of appeals by banks and by the Revenue, was whether the proviso to section 36(1)(vii), which limits the deduction to the excess over the credit balance in the clause (viia) account, applies to all bad debts or only to those arising out of rural advances.
The question was answered in favour of the assessees. The banks' appeals were allowed and the Revenue's dismissed, and all matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for computation in accordance with the law as laid down. The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is limited in its application to bad debts arising out of rural advances of a bank. Where the amount actually written off represents debts arising out of urban advances, the allowance is not affected, controlled or limited in any way by the proviso. A scheduled commercial bank therefore continues to get the full benefit of the write-off of irrecoverable debts under clause (vii), in addition to the deduction for the provision made under clause (viia). The deduction under clause (vii) remains subject to the requirements of section 36(2), which the assessee must establish.
The Court began with the legislative purpose. Clause (viia) was inserted to promote rural banking and to help scheduled commercial banks make adequate provision out of current profits against the risks of their rural advances, and the deduction is a percentage of the aggregate average advances of the rural branches computed under the Rules. The Court noted from the Board's circulars and the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Finance Act, 1986 that the scheme was to encourage rural business by giving greater deductions, and that rural branches were in practice treated almost as a distinct business. A deduction granted for that purpose would be frustrated if it were implicitly neutralised against an independent deduction elsewhere in the Act. Turning to the text, the Court held the language of clause (vii) unambiguous: it applies to all banks, commercial or rural, scheduled or unscheduled, and allows any bad debt written off as irrecoverable, subject only to section 36(2). The Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 puts a mere provision outside clause (vii) altogether. The proviso does not control clause (vii) in absolute terms; it comes into operation only where the assessee's case falls squarely within clause (viia). The purpose of the proviso is to protect the revenue against double deduction, which can arise only where the same rural advance attracts both a provision allowed under clause (viia) and an actual write-off under clause (vii). It would be meaningless to invoke it where there is no such threat. That reading is confirmed by the structure of clause (viia) itself: sub-clause (a) applies only to rural advances, while sub-clauses (b) and (c), covering foreign banks and financial institutions and corporations, deal with entities that have no rural branches at all. The Court approved the Special Bench of the Tribunal, which had reached the same conclusion on the strength of the Board's own circulars, and referred to its earlier discussion of both clauses in Southern Technologies.
if the amount of bad debt(s) actually written off in the accounts of the bank represents only debt(s) arising out of urban advances, the allowance thereof in the assessment is not affected, controlled or limited in any way by the proviso to clause (vii).
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Supreme Court held that the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) for a provision against rural advances is distinct and independent of the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) for a bad debt actually written off. The proviso to clause (vii), which limits the write-off deduction to the excess over the credit balance in the clause (viia) account, exists only to prevent double deduction, and can operate only where that risk exists - that is, in respect of rural advances. Where the debts written off arise out of urban advances, the allowance is not affected by the proviso at all. The banks' appeals were allowed and the Revenue's dismissed. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar; main judgment by Swatanter Kumar, J, with a concurring judgment by Kapadia, CJI) and bears on section 36(1)(vii), section 36(1)(viia), section 36(2), section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (2012) 343 ITR 270; AIR 2012 SC 1538; 2012 (2) SCALE 573; 2012 Tax LR 382. This is the settled Supreme Court authority on the interaction of the two clauses, and the harvested page records it as cited in 285 later decisions. Its practical effect for every scheduled bank is that a healthy clause (viia) provision does not eat into the deduction for genuine urban write-offs, which is what assessing officers had been holding. Two features of the reasoning are worth carrying into other arguments. The Court read the proviso by reference to the mischief it addresses - a provision inserted to protect the revenue against double deduction is meaningless where there is no threat of double deduction - and it declined to let a purposive relief for rural banking be neutralised by reading the limits of one clause into another. The Chief Justice's concurring judgment sets the same conclusion out compactly and is the shorter passage to cite. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Keep rural and urban advances separately identified in the bad debt schedules; the whole relief turns on being able to show which write-offs arise from urban advances.
In the lead appeal a scheduled bank filed its return for assessment year 2002-03 on 24 October 2002 declaring income of Rs.61,15,610. The return was processed under section 143(1) and a refund issued, but the Assessing Officer then took the case up under section 143(2) and completed the assessment under section 143(3). The bank had claimed bad debts of Rs.12,65,95,770 written off, and separately held a provision for bad and doubtful debts of Rs.15,01,29,990 allowed under section 36(1)(viia). The officer rejected the argument that the two deductions are independent. Because the bad debts written off did not exceed the credit balance in the provision account, and because he took the view that clause (v) of section 36(2) was not satisfied, he disallowed the whole of the write-off and added it back, issuing a demand notice. The question that reached the Supreme Court, in a large batch of appeals by banks and by the Revenue, was whether the proviso to section 36(1)(vii), which limits the deduction to the excess over the credit balance in the clause (viia) account, applies to all bad debts or only to those arising out of rural advances. The matter was decided on 2012-02-17 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar; main judgment by Swatanter Kumar, J, with a concurring judgment by Kapadia, CJI). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The question was answered in favour of the assessees. The banks' appeals were allowed and the Revenue's dismissed, and all matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for computation in accordance with the law as laid down. The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is limited in its application to bad debts arising out of rural advances of a bank. Where the amount actually written off represents debts arising out of urban advances, the allowance is not affected, controlled or limited in any way by the proviso. A scheduled commercial bank therefore continues to get the full benefit of the write-off of irrecoverable debts under clause (vii), in addition to the deduction for the provision made under clause (viia). The deduction under clause (vii) remains subject to the requirements of section 36(2), which the assessee must establish.
The Court began with the legislative purpose. Clause (viia) was inserted to promote rural banking and to help scheduled commercial banks make adequate provision out of current profits against the risks of their rural advances, and the deduction is a percentage of the aggregate average advances of the rural branches computed under the Rules. The Court noted from the Board's circulars and the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Finance Act, 1986 that the scheme was to encourage rural business by giving greater deductions, and that rural branches were in practice treated almost as a distinct business. A deduction granted for that purpose would be frustrated if it were implicitly neutralised against an independent deduction elsewhere in the Act. Turning to the text, the Court held the language of clause (vii) unambiguous: it applies to all banks, commercial or rural, scheduled or unscheduled, and allows any bad debt written off as irrecoverable, subject only to section 36(2). The Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 puts a mere provision outside clause (vii) altogether. The proviso does not control clause (vii) in absolute terms; it comes into operation only where the assessee's case falls squarely within clause (viia). The purpose of the proviso is to protect the revenue against double deduction, which can arise only where the same rural advance attracts both a provision allowed under clause (viia) and an actual write-off under clause (vii). It would be meaningless to invoke it where there is no such threat. That reading is confirmed by the structure of clause (viia) itself: sub-clause (a) applies only to rural advances, while sub-clauses (b) and (c), covering foreign banks and financial institutions and corporations, deal with entities that have no rural branches at all. The Court approved the Special Bench of the Tribunal, which had reached the same conclusion on the strength of the Board's own circulars, and referred to its earlier discussion of both clauses in Southern Technologies. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "if the amount of bad debt(s) actually written off in the accounts of the bank represents only debt(s) arising out of urban advances, the allowance thereof in the assessment is not affected, controlled or limited in any way by the proviso to clause (vii)."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2012-02-17 and is reported as (2012) 343 ITR 270; AIR 2012 SC 1538; 2012 (2) SCALE 573; 2012 Tax LR 382. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 36(1)(vii), section 36(1)(viia), section 36(2), section 36(1)(viia)(a), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The question was answered in favour of the assessees. The banks' appeals were allowed and the Revenue's dismissed, and all matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for computation in accordance with the law as laid down. The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is limited in its application to bad debts arising out of rural advances of a bank. Where the amount actually written off represents debts arising out of urban advances, the allowance is not affected, controlled or limited in any way by the proviso. A scheduled commercial bank therefore continues to get the full benefit of the write-off of irrecoverable debts under clause (vii), in addition to the deduction for the provision made under clause (viia). The deduction under clause (vii) remains subject to the requirements of section 36(2), which the assessee must establish. It arises in Deductions & Disallowances and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 36(1)(vii), section 36(1)(viia), section 36(2), section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar; main judgment by Swatanter Kumar, J, with a concurring judgment by Kapadia, CJI. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Where the officer applies the proviso across the board, point out that clause (viia)(a) applies only to rural advances and that clauses (viia)(b) and (c) cover institutions with no rural branches at all. Satisfy section 36(2) independently for every write-off, including clause (v); the deduction under clause (vii) remains subject to it. Remember that a mere provision is not a write-off for clause (vii) - the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 excludes it - so the accounting entry must be an actual write-off as irrecoverable.
Still good law. A three judge Supreme Court judgment, read through to both the main and the concurring operative conclusions; it binds unless a larger Bench departs from it, and the harvested page shows it cited in 285 later decisions. I could not check for any subsequent amendment to section 36(1)(vii) or its proviso affecting later years. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The harvested page is clipped: the source marks that about 10,828 characters of the middle are not reproduced. The missing passage falls in the Court's setting out of section 36(2) and the earlier part of its discussion of the legislative history and the Board's circulars. The facts, the framed question, the Court's own reasoning from paragraph 23 onwards, its operative order and the whole of the Chief Justice's concurring judgment survive. The batch line listed section 36(2)(v); the Assessing Officer had relied on it but the Court decided the appeals on the scope of the proviso, holding only that the clause (vii) deduction remains subject to section 36(2) generally. Because the Court remanded every matter to the Assessing Officer for computation, this record says nothing about the figures ultimately allowed in any individual case. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The question was answered in favour of the assessees. The banks' appeals were allowed and the Revenue's dismissed, and all matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for computation in accordance with the law as laid down. The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is limited in its application to bad debts arising out of rural advances of a bank. Where the amount actually written off represents debts arising out of urban advances, the allowance is not affected, controlled or limited in any way by the proviso. A scheduled commercial bank therefore continues to get the full benefit of the write-off of irrecoverable debts under clause (vii), in addition to the deduction for the provision made under clause (viia). The deduction under clause (vii) remains subject to the requirements of section 36(2), which the assessee must establish.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The AO wants proof my debt is actually irrecoverable before allowing the bad debt write-off. Is that right?
My employee embezzled money from the business bank account. Can I write that off for tax?
I debited the bad debt to the profit and loss account and reduced debtors in the balance sheet, but did not close each debtor's ledger account — is that an actual write-off under section 36(1)(vii)?
My NBFC has to debit a provision for non-performing assets to the profit and loss account under the RBI norms. Can the officer add it back when computing my taxable income?