← All Phrases

“Section 36(2)(v)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(2)(v)104 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(2)(v) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(2)(v)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court
714
citing judgments

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.
378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

Judgments citing Section 36(2)(v)

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

should be limited to claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and the overall claim of the assessee shall be subject to provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already ITA Nos.193 & 316/Hyd/2019 15 availed benefit u/s 36(1)(viia) for both creation of provision ... proviso to section 36(1)(vi) will relate to cases covered under section 36(1)(viia) and has to be read with section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit the benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while, under section 36

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3164/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause." 7. Section 36(2)(v) of the Act provides that in cases where clause (via) of subsection 1 applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee ... debit the actual bad debt account to provision for bad debts account allowed u/s. 36(1)(via)(c) of as stipulated in section 36(2)(v) of the Act and also the provision for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia)(c), which is limited

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3161/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause." 7. Section 36(2)(v) of the Act provides that in cases where clause (via) of subsection 1 applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee ... debit the actual bad debt account to provision for bad debts account allowed u/s. 36(1)(via)(c) of as stipulated in section 36(2)(v) of the Act and also the provision for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia)(c), which is limited

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3157/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause." 7. Section 36(2)(v) of the Act provides that in cases where clause (via) of subsection 1 applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee ... debit the actual bad debt account to provision for bad debts account allowed u/s. 36(1)(via)(c) of as stipulated in section 36(2)(v) of the Act and also the provision for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia)(c), which is limited

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 365/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

should be limited to claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and the overall claim of the assessee shall be subject to provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already availed benefit u/s 36(1)(viia) for both creation of provision and actual written

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile- Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

should be limited to claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and the overall claim of the assessee shall be subject to provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already availed benefit u/s 36(1)(viia) for both creation of provision and actual written

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 351/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

should be limited to claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and the overall claim of the assessee shall be subject to provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already availed benefit u/s 36(1)(viia) for both creation of provision and actual written

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 350/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

should be limited to claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and the overall claim of the assessee shall be subject to provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already availed benefit u/s 36(1)(viia) for both creation of provision and actual written

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India ( Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1228/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S / Ms. LalithaFor Respondent: ShriAshish Heliwal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, and the overall claim of the assessee is subject to the conditions outlined in Section 36(2)(v) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), in his findings, relied on the same judgment of the Hon’able Supreme Court in Catholic

ACIT, Non-Corporate Cirle-8, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

ITA 254/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON

ACIT, Non-Corporate Cirle-8, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

ITA 253/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

2 ITA Nos .661 & 914/19, 202,203/23 others others years 2015-16, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 respectively against different

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(2), Chennai

Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 203/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.661/Chny/2019, 202 & 203/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-2018) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Ltu (2) Chennai. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.914/Chny/2019, 253 & 254/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17&2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Ltu (2) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

write off bad and doubtful debts of rural or non-rural advance u/s 36(1)(v) read with the proviso thereunder and section 36(2)(v) of the Act would fail.” Thus, it is evident from the above extract that the quantum of deduction arrived at by the assessing officer

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

ITA 914/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

2 ITA Nos .661 & 914/19, 202,203/23 others years 2015-16, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 respectively against different impugned

Bank of Maharashra, Pune vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan and Mrs. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40A(7)

required to be verified for allowing such a deduction in terms of provisions of Rule 6ABA read with section 36(1)(viia) and section 36(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Failure on the part of the FAO rendered the assessment order dated 27/04/2021 under section

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

assessee had made the provision for the same in the profit and loss account as per section 36(1) (viia) read with section 36(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee calculated the 7.5% of total income at Rs. (-) 15,34,02,581/- and 10% of rural

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

assessee had made the provision for the same in the profit and loss account as per section 36(1) (viia) read with section 36(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee calculated the 7.5% of total income at Rs. (-) 15,34,02,581/- and 10% of rural

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 527/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19
Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year: Section 36(2)(v) reads as under: “where such debt or part of debt relates to advances made by an assessee to which clause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies ... provides that the write offs made by the banks in respect of advances will be allowed as deduction subject to the provisions of Section 36(2)(v).A coordinating reading of 36(2)(v) and 36(1)(vii) will provide that that write offs in respect of advances for which

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 526/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18
Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year: Section 36(2)(v) reads as under: “where such debt or part of debt relates to advances made by an assessee to which clause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies ... provides that the write offs made by the banks in respect of advances will be allowed as deduction subject to the provisions of Section 36(2)(v).A coordinating reading of 36(2)(v) and 36(1)(vii) will provide that that write offs in respect of advances for which

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 517/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year: Section 36(2)(v) reads as under: “where such debt or part of debt relates to advances made by an assessee to which clause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies ... provides that the write offs made by the banks in respect of advances will be allowed as deduction subject to the provisions of Section 36(2)(v).A coordinating reading of 36(2)(v) and 36(1)(vii) will provide that that write offs in respect of advances for which

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 516/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M.Sanjeev Aditya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Nayani Swapna, CIT
Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year: Section 36(2)(v) reads as under: “where such debt or part of debt relates to advances made by an assessee to which clause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies ... provides that the write offs made by the banks in respect of advances will be allowed as deduction subject to the provisions of Section 36(2)(v).A coordinating reading of 36(2)(v) and 36(1)(vii) will provide that that write offs in respect of advances for which