Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 191 Taxman 179 (Del.). The Delhi High Court has held as under:- "It was held that so long as assessee has not concealed any material fact or any factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), even if claim made by him is unsustainable in law, provided that he either substantiate explanation offered by him or explanation, even if not substantiated, is found to be bona fide.

ITAT Ahmedabad, Bench-D in the case of Sun Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO - ITA No. 1010/Ahd/2009 dated 05-06-2009 held that no interest can be charged when there is restrospective amendment in the Act. If no interest can be charged then the question of levy of penalty does not arise in view of restrospective amendment.

How to Write off a debt as per provisions of Section 36(1)(vii)

Held by Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. [320 ITR 577]

If an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the asset account like sundry debtor’s account, it would constitute a write off of an actual debt.

 However, if an assessee debits `provision for doubtful debt' to the profit and loss account and makes a corresponding credit to the `current liabilities and provisions' on the liabilities side of the balance-sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt. In the latter case, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction

Held by Supreme Court in Vijya Bank 323 ITR 168 

upholding the order of Tribunal and reversing the decision of High Court that besides debiting the Profit and Loss Account and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debt, the assessee-Bank had correspondingly/simultaneously obliterated the said provision from it's accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from Loans and Advances/debtors on the asset side of the Balance Sheet and, consequently, at the end of the year, the figure in the loans and advances or the debtors on the asset side of the Balance Sheet was shown as net of the provision “for impugned bad debt”.

In the circumstances, we hold, on the first question, that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in it's Books, as indicated above

Whether it is imperative for the assessee-Bank to close the individual account of each of it's debtors in it's books or a mere reduction in the Loans and Advances or Debtors on the asset side of it's Balance Sheet to the extent of the provision for bad debt would be sufficient to constitute a write off

SC in the case of Vijya Bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 168 has held that

What is being insisted upon by the Assessing Officer is that mere reduction of the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end would not suffice and, in the interest of transparency, it would be desirable for the assessee-Bank to close each and every individual account of loans and advances or debtors as a pre-condition for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act……..because the Assessing Officer apprehended that the assessee-Bank might be taking the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act, twice over.

In this context, it may be noted that there is no finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had unauthorisedly claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), twice over. The Order of the Assessing Officer is based on an apprehension that, if the assessee fails to close each and every individual account of it's debtor, it may result in assessee claiming deduction twice over. In this case, we are concerned with the interpretation of Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. We cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehensions/desirability. It is always open to the Assessing Officer to call for details of individual debtor's account if the Assessing Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that assessee has claimed deduction, twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken in subsequent years.

There is also a flipside to the argument of the Department. Assessee has instituted recovery suits in Courts against it's debtors. If individual accounts are to be closed, then the Debtor/Defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the Bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed.

Further Held by Supreme Court that if amount is recovered subsequently and it is more than difference between debt and amount so allowed , the balance can be taxed u/s 41(4).