The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another v. Union of India & Two others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Section 238 of Insolvency Code and Section 142(1)/143(2)/79 of Income-tax Act; 1961

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another Vs Union of India & Two others Date- 18th January 2022 Forum-Telangana High court Sub-Whether notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Income-tax Act ,1961 for the period before the order of the NCLT passing the resolution plan is valid even when a revised return is filed subsequently after the date of NCLT’s order. Also can a different view be taken in view of the fact that brought forward loss is claimed to be carried forward to future years which are not covered by the order of the NCLT? The division bench of Telangana high court in this case was considering a case where the Notices u/s 142(1)/143(2) for AY 2017-18 were challenged under article 226 of the Constitution of India on the pretext that the proceedings for assessment in respect of the above year had lapsed in view of order of the NCLT having been passed on 19.7.2018. However, the department…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

W.P.No.25827 OF 2019 JUDGMENT AND ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Mamatha Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondents. 2 By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of notices dated 22.09.2019, 21.10.2019 and 30. 10.2019 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the assessment year 2017-18 as being illegal and non-est and further seek a direction to the said respondents not to reopen their claims which were settled in insolvency proceedings. 3 Petitioner No.1 is a comp any incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is en gaged in the business of paper manufacturing. Similar is the status of petitioner No.2. 4 M / s . R a m a R o a d L i n e s and others had filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) as operational cr editor for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process of petitioner No.1. The said application was admitted on 18.09.2017 by the National Company Law Tribunal (briefly, ‘t he Tribunal’ hereinafter). By virtue of order of the Tribunal, Section 13 of IBC came into play

quantified at Rs.95.71 crores and the payment as per the resolution plan was fixed at Rs.9.50 crores. 7 Petitioner No.1 had filed re turn for the assessment year 2017-18 on 17.10.2018. Therea fter respondent No.2 issued notice dated 22.09.2019 under Se ction 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly, ‘the Act’ hereinafter) read with Rule 12E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (bri efly, ‘the Rules’ hereinafter). Responding to the said notice, petitioner No.1 stated in the letter dated 14.10.2019 that as the resolution plan has been approved by the Tribunal, all proceedings and claims arising from dues prior to approval of resolution plan stood discharged by virtue of Section 31(1) of th e IBC. In addition, petitioner No.1 also informed respondent No.2 that the factory remained closed from September 2014 on wards due to severe financial crisis; it was also stated that there were no sales and purchase transactions recorded during the assessment year 2017-18. 8 Without considering the reply of petitioner No.1, respondent No.3 again sent noti ce under Section 142(1) of the Act on 22.10.2019 calling upon petitioner No.1 to furnish the accounts for the assessment year 2017-18 as we ll as details regarding its immovable assets. This was followed by another notice issued by respondent No.3 on 30.10.2019. 9 Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

refund or any other proceedings under the Act shall be initiated on the corporate debtor in rela tion to the period prior to acquisition of control by the resolution applicant. 12 Petitioners have asserted that the impugned notices dated 22.09.2019, 21.10.2019 and 30. 10.2019 for the assessment year 2017-18 in relation to period prior to the date of approval of the resolution plan, would no longer be maintainable in view of the resolution plan. 13 Petitioners have further re ferred to and relied upon the provisions of Section 238 of the IBC which says that provisions of IBC shall have an overriding effect over all other laws. 14 This Court by order da ted 20.12.2019 stayed the operation of the notices date d 22.09.2019, 21.10.2019 and 30.10.2019 till the next date of hearing, which order has been continued from time to time. 15 Petitioners have filed an addi tional affidavit. It is stated that return of income for th e assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 07.11.2017 by the resoluti on professional on behalf of petitioner No.1. In the said return loss of Rs.15,49,43,866-00 was shown and refund of Rs.11, 47,698-00 on account of tax deduction at source (TDS) was claimed. 16 Resolution plan of petitioner No.2 in relation to petitioner No.1 was approved by the Tribunal on 19.07.2018. Referring to Clause 7.5 of the resolution pl an, it is stated that the said

clause specifically provides that there would be no further claims binding on the petitioners subsequent to the completion date, particularly, in the context of the Act. 17 Even so, vide notice dated 02.10.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, it wa s informed that there was some arithmetical error in the original return filed by petitioner No.1 for which petitioner No.1 was required to file revised return. On verification it was found that while computing the income under the head ‘business or pr ofession’, interest income of Rs.97,28,737-00 was reduced to be reflected under the head ‘income from other sources’. However, the same was not shown under the head ‘income from other sources’ 18 Since this was purely an arithmetical error and as petitioner No.1 agreed to the stand of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, the same was corrected by filing revised return on 17.10.2018. In the revised return, petitioner No.1 reduced the loss figure by Rs.97,28,737-00 and claimed loss of Rs.14,52,15,129-00 (Rs.15,49,43 ,866-00 less Rs.97,28,73700). Besides the above, there were no other changes in the revised return. 19 Petitioner No.1 informed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC on 01.11.2018 that the mistake in the original return was rectified in the revi sed return. However, respondent

No.3 issued the first impugned notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act. 20 Fundamental grievance of the petitioners is that by way of the impugned notices, several issues are being reopened. Reiterating that rights / claims of respondent No.2 are to be seen in the context of the IBC an d that respondent No.2 cannot exercise an independent right afte r resolution plan is approved by the Tribunal, petitioners see k quashing of the impugned notices. 21 Respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit. At the outset, respondent No.3 has quest ioned maintainability of the writ petition since the impugned notices were issued in exercise of the statutory jurisdiction vest ed with respondent No.3. The r e s o l u t i o n p l a n s o u g h t t o b e r elied upon by the petitioners is neither applicable nor bindin g upon the respondents. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are neither operational creditors nor involved in the making of the resolution plan. 22 Since petitioners are seeking to establish that by way of carry forward of accumulate d losses and unabsorbed depreciation of approximatel y Rs.377.00 crores for the assessment year 2017-18 to be set up against future profits and the refund of approximately Rs.11,47,608-00 for the assessment year 2017-18, answering respondent is entitled to undertake proceedings which woul d establish the veracity and correctness of such claims.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

and moratorium was ordered. As per Section 21 of the IBC, a committee of creditors was constituted from amongst the financial creditors of the corporate debtor i.e. petitioner No.1. 5 Thereafter, the resolution professional made a public announcement on 25.09.2017 inviting claims from all the creditors. It is stated that respondents did not submit claims before the resolution professional. As part of the resolution process, prospective resolution applicants were invited to present their resolution plans fo r the corporate debtor i.e. petitioner No.1. Petitioner No .2 as the resolution applicant submitted its resolution plan on 12.02.2018, which was thereafter revised pursuant to discussions held with the committee of creditors. The sa id resolution plan was revised from time to time as sought fo r by the creditors. The final resolution plan was submitted by petitioner No.2 on 30.04.2018. The same was appr oved by the committee of creditors and it was approved by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 19.07.2018. 6 According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 had ample opportunity to submit claims before the resolution professional. But it failed to do so. Be that as it may, the resolution plan as approved by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.07.2018, dealt with the various claims made against the corporate debtor i.e. petitioner No.1. As per the appr oved resolution plan, the total claim of the operational creditor s of the corporate debtor was

respondent i.e. Income Tax De partment did not submit its claim. On 07.11.2017 the resolution professional filed income tax return on behalf of the co rporate debtor for the assessment year 2017-18. Petitioner No.2 submitted resolution plan in respect of the corporate debtor on 12.02.2018. However, following discussions with the co mmittee of creditors, revised / final resolution plan was subm itted by petitioner No.2 on 30.04.2018. Resolution plan subm itted by petitioner No.2, as revised, was approved by th e committee of creditors and thereafter by the Tribunal on 19.07.2018. When respondent No.3 pointed out arithmetical e rror in the return filed on 07.11.2017 by issuing notice under Section 143 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act on 02.10.2018, petitioner No .1 filed revised return on 17.10.2018 accepting the error. This was followed by the impugned notices dated 22 .09.2019, 14.10.2019 and 21.10.2019 under Sections 143(2) and 142 (1) of the Act. 34 Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Sections 5 (20) and 5 (21) of IBC to contend that Income Tax Department would be construed to be an operational creditor and the tax dues would be construed to be an operational debt. Referring to the provisions of su b-Section (1) of Section 31 IBC, he submits that once a resoluti on plan as approved by the committee of creditors is ap proved by the adjudicating authority, all concerned includ ing the Income Tax Department would be bound by the resoluti on plan. Learned counsel for

the petitioners has referred to the resolution plan, more particularly, to Clause 7.5 (c) thereof to contend that all existing income tax dues would stand extinguished and all notices proposing to initiate any pro ceeding against the corporate debtor in relation to the period prior to the date of the Tribunal’s order would stand abated. Income Tax Department cannot proceed on the basis of th e impugned notices. If there is any doubt on this count, Section 238 IBC makes it abundantly clear that provisions of the IBC would prevail over the Act. 35 However, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to Clause 17.7(c) of the reso lution plan submits that notwithstanding the binding nature of the resolution plan as approved by the Tribunal, it wo uld not come in the way of the petitioners to raise claims against the respondents by way of set off of carry forward of accu mulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation for the past period against profits of future years including entitlement to refund. 36 In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited 1, ii) Leo Edibles & Fats Limited Vs. Tax Recovery Officer2,

38 Without prejudice to the above contention, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no ‘operational debt’ of petitioner No.1 towards the respondents. Therefore, respondents cannot be construed to be operational creditor within the meaning of Se ction 5 (20) IBC. Since there are no dues to be paid by the petitioner to the Income Tax Department, Clause 7.5 of the r esolution plan would not be applicable and cannot be cons trued to be binding on the respondents. In any view of the matter, Clause 7.5 (c) only states that assessments and notice s issued prior to approval of the resolution plan would stand abated and prohibits reassessment or revision. It do es not bar or prohibit initiation of any proceeding post the approval date of the Tribunal. 39 Insofar the present case is concerned, petitioner No.1 filed revised return on 17.10.2018 and it was only in connection with the revised return that th e impugned notices were issued for furnishing evidence / informat ion for a limited scrutiny of the revised return. She points out that the revised return was filed on 17.10.2018 af ter approval of the resolution plan on 19.07.2018. 40 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that contrary to the contention of the petitioners, what the petitioners are seeking by way of the revised return is carry forward of accumulated losses an d unabsorbed depreciation to be set off against future profits. This has to be verified and an

Revenue / respondent submissions

assessment has to be made without which the benefit of carry forward may not be available to the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that there is no inconsistency between the reso lution plan and by extension IBC with the impugned notices and the Act. Therefore, question of Section 238 IBC having overriding effect is redundant. She has al so referred to the provisions of Section 79 of the Act prior to its subs titution with effect from 01.04.2020. Referring to the said provision, more particularly, to the third proviso thereof, sh e submits that the provision contained in Section 79 providing for carry forward and set off of losses subject to the conditio ns stipulated therein would be applicable to petitioner No.1. 41 She further submits that the impugned notices have been issued by the respondents in exer cise of their statutory powers and well within their jurisdiction. Filing of the writ petition is nothing but an attempt to pr event the respondents from discharging their statutory duty. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 42 Submissions made by learne d counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 43 Before adverting to the fact s of the present case, it would be apposite to deal with those provisions of the IBC, which are relevant to the present case.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

10 It is contended that Income Tax Department i.e. respondent No.2 is an operatio nal creditor of the corporate debtor i.e. petitioner No.1. As a consequence of approval of the resolution plan under Section 31(1 ) IBC, the resolution plan is binding on the corporate debtor as well as on the creditors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan. The rights/claims of respondent No. 2 are well protected under IBC. Therefore, respondent No.2 ca nnot exercise an independent right after an order is passed by the Tribunal approving the resolution plan. 11 Reference has also been made to a Government of Telangana order dated 21.03.201 8 whereby and whereudner benefits were extended to petitioner No.2 for revival of petitioner No.1. It was stated therein th at Government dues are to be settled proportionately with the dues of other operational creditors. Reliance has also been placed upon Clause 7.5 (c) of the resolution plan which stat es that upon approval of the resolution plan by the Tribunal all dues under the Act in relation to any period prior to the completi on date shall stand extinguished and the corporate debtor shall not be liable to pay any such amount. All notices proposing to initiate any proceedings against the corporat e debtor in relation to the period prior to the date of the order of the Tribunal and pending on that day shall stand abated and shall not be proceeded against. Post the order of the Tribunal, no reassessment /

23 Impugned notice date d 22.09.2018 was issued electronically pursuant to an automated Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for limited scrutiny of the return filed by the petitioner on 17.10.201 8 with respect to investment, business loss etc. The subsequent notices dated 21.10.2019 and 30.10.2019 were issued by the third respondent under Section 142 of the Act. Thus the impugned notices are in accordance with the Act, within jurisdiction and maintainable. 24 As petitioner No.1 was a loss-making entity no tax was payable and consequently no moni es remain recoverable so as to require any claim to be made by respondent No.3 vis-à-vis petitioner No.1. Therefore, th ere was no requirement for the respondents to submit any cl aim before the resolution professional. As respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no claim against petitioner No.1 and are not oper ational creditors, contentions advanced by the petitioners on the presumption that Income Tax Department i.e. respondent No .2 is an operational creditor are totally misplaced. There is no debt or dues payable by the petitioners to the respondents and therefore respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not operational creditor s. Further, respondents did not receive any notice of the resolution plan and were not granted an opportunity to partic ipate in the formulation of the resolution plan. Hence the reso lution plan cannot be said to be binding on respondent Nos.2 and 3.

consequently eligible to refu nd for the assessment year 2017-18. 31 Putting the matter in perspe ctive it is stated that the original return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 07.11.2017. For the reasons indicated this was revised by petitioner No.1 on 17.10.2018. Therefore, the contention of the answering respondent that th e return of income was filed by petitioner No.1 on 17.10.2018 after the date of order of the Tribunal is incorrect. The revi sed return of income was in relation to the past period wh ich the answering respondent has no legal mandate to reopen by virtue of the resolution plan. 32 In the circumstances it is reiterated that impugned notices dated 22.09.2019, 21. 10.2019 and 30.10.2019 are beyond jurisdiction, in contravention of the resolution plan and therefore are liable to be set aside and quashed. 33 Learned counsel for the peti tioners has submitted a brief synopsis and list of dates mentio ning therein the chronology of events. He submits therefrom th at M/s. Rama Road Lines and other operational creditors ha d filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC for insolvency resolution of Petitioner No.1, which was admitted by the Tr ibunal on 18.09.2017. Moratorium was ordered and committee of creditors of the corporate debtor was constituted. When resolution professional made public announcement on 25.09.2017 inviting claims from all the creditors of the corporat e debtor i.e. petitioner No.1,

iii) Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta3 , iv) Shree Raghav Ispat (India) Private Limited vs. State of Telangana4, v) Ghanashyam Mishra and So ns Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited5, vi) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited6. 37 In response, Ms. Mamatha Chowdary, learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Depa rtment submits that there is no substance in the contention s advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The impugned notices have been issued under Sections 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act. As per those notices, petitioner No.1 has only been called upon to produce documents or furnish information in relation to its claim of carry forward of losses. There is nothing in the impugned notices which can be said to be in conflict with or in contravention of the resolution plan as approved. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the sa id notices is liable to be dismissed.

The existing framework for insolvency and bankruptcy is inadequate, ineffective and results in undue delay in resolution, therefore, the proposed legislation. 2. The objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2015 is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, pa rtnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders including altera tion in the priority of payment of government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fund, and matters concerned therewith or incidental thereto. An effective legal framework for timely resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy would support development of credit market s and encourage entrepreneurship.

52 Thus from the above, we find that any amount due to the Central Government and to the St ate Government in respect of the whole or any part of the pe riod of two years preceding the liquidation commencement date is placed at Sl.No.5 in order of priority. 53 Finally, Section 238 IBC says that provisions of IBC shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for th e time being in force or any instrument having effect by vi rtue of any such law. Thus, provisions of IBC will override other laws. 54 While on the IBC, we may refer to some of the judgments which may have a bearing on the present dispute. 55 In Dena Bank Vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co7, Supreme Court has held that income tax dues being in the nature of crown debts do not take precedence over secured

Operative decision and relief

debtor. This the successful resolution Applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, the NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count.

95. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under: (i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue an y proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan; (ii) x x x x (iii) Consequently all the dues includ ing the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues fo r the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority gran ts its approval Under Section 31 could be continued.

Department and such claims wh ich are outside the resolution plan for the period covered by the resolution plan would stand extinguished. The impugned notices seek to initiate assessment proceedings under Section143 (3) of the Act for a period which is squarely covered by the resolution plan as approved by the Tribunal. 73 In the circumstances, impugned notices dated 22.09.2019, 21. 10.2019 and 30. 10.2019 being wholly unsustainable in law are hereby set aside and quashed. 74 Writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Misc ellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another v. Union of India & Two others concerns the sirpur paper mills limited & another vs union of india & two others date- 18th january 2022 forum-telangana high court sub-whether notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the income-tax act ,1961 for the period before the order of the nclt passing the resolution plan is valid even when a revised return is filed subsequently after the date of nclt’s order. also can a different view be taken in view of the fact that brought forward loss is claimed to be carried forward to future years which are not covered by the order of the nclt? the division bench of telangana high court in this case was considering a case where the notices u/s 142(1)/143(2) for ay 2017-18 were challenged under article 226 of the constitution of india on the pretext that the proceedings for assessment in respect of the above year had lapsed in view of order of the nclt having been passed on 19.7.2018. however, the department… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.No.25827 of 2019.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Quashed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another Vs Union of India & Two others Date- 18th January 2022 Forum-Telangana High court Sub-Whether notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Income-tax Act ,1961 for the period before the order of the NCLT passing the resolution plan is valid even when a revised return is filed subsequently after the date of NCLT’s order. Also can a different view be taken in view of the fact that brought forward loss is claimed to be carried forward to future years which are not covered by the order of the NCLT? The division bench of Telangana high court in this case was considering a case where the Notices u/s 142(1)/143(2) for AY 2017-18 were challenged under article 226 of the Constitution of India on the pretext that the proceedings for assessment in respect of the above year had lapsed in view of order of the NCLT having been passed on 19.7.2018. However, the department… Its practical value lies in the way the Telangana High Court connected the governing provisions—Section 238 of Insolvency Code and Section 142(1)/143(2)/79 of Income-tax Act; 1961—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of Section 238 of Insolvency Code and Section 142(1)/143(2)/79 of Income-tax Act; 1961 and the decision date 2022-01-18; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited & Another v. Union of India & Two others, the proceeding is W.P.No.25827 of 2019, and the decision is dated 2022-01-18. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan; Hon'ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with Section 238 of Insolvency Code and Section 142(1)/143(2)/79 of Income-tax Act; 1961. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Quashed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• Section 238 of Insolvency Code and Section 142(1)/143(2)/79 of Income-tax Act — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• 1961 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Limited — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• Mohit Bansal v. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India — Delhi High Court · Quashed / set aside
• Income Tax Officer v. V.Mohan — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• Shree Balkrishna Commercial Ltd v. Pr CIT — Itat Delhi · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore General Tax & Legal Principles

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY