TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows bad debts claim due to fraud but rejects PPF deduction for lack of proof.</h1> <h3>Shri Mohan Jain C/o Shri Pavan Ved Versus ITO-1 (2), Ujjain</h3> Shri Mohan Jain C/o Shri Pavan Ved Versus ITO-1 (2), Ujjain - TMI Issues involved:1. Disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 1,63,43,622.2. Non-allowance of deduction under section 80C for PPF contribution.3. Appeal against the order of the CIT(A) being incorrect and perverse.4. Request for interim relief for total stay of demand recovery.Issue 1: Disallowance of bad debtsThe assessee's appeal was directed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of bad debts of Rs. 1,63,43,622 for the assessment year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim stating it was premature. The assessee argued that the bad debts were a result of a fraud by National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) and were written off accordingly. The assessee cited legal precedents and circulars supporting their claim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in M/s. TRF Limited Vs. CIT was referred to, emphasizing that after April 1, 1989, it is not necessary to establish irrecoverability, but enough if the bad debt is written off. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of bad debt as the debt was written off, and legal proceedings against NSEL were ongoing.Issue 2: Non-allowance of deduction under section 80CThe second ground of appeal was related to the non-allowance of deduction under section 80C for PPF contribution. The assessee did not provide arguments or details regarding this claim, and as a result, this ground of appeal was rejected due to lack of substantiation.Issue 3: Appeal against incorrect and perverse orderThe third ground of appeal was of a general nature and did not require separate adjudication, as it was not specific to any particular issue or argument. The Tribunal did not provide further details on this ground.ConclusionThe Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of bad debt. The order was pronounced on 05.02.2019. The judgment addressed the issues of bad debt disallowance and the non-allowance of deduction under section 80C, providing detailed analysis and legal references to support its decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
