DION GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(2), NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. This was based on the moratorium order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) preventing further proceedings.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, Dion Global Solutions Ltd., was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A moratorium was declared, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.
What were the issues?
Whether proceedings can continue against a company undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) when a moratorium is in effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT1,569 citing378 ITR 33 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.128 citing272 CTR 282 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI
against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34 & 03, New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 19/08/2019, 07/05/2019 for Assessment Years 2010-11& 2015- 16 respectively. Grounds taken in these appeals are as under: (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11)
1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)’) erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of Rs. 58,807,548 made by learned Assessing Officer ‘AO’ under section 14Aofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) and CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 272 CTR 282 (Del), no disallowance under section 14A of the Act was required to be made, in respect of investment from which no exempt dividend income was earned during the relevant
year.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred on the law by ignoring the revised grounds of appeal filed during the course of appellate proceedings.
4. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed exempt income of Rs.159,053 earned during the year as per the principle laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of McDonalds I Pvt. Ltd v Pr. CIT-6 (TS- 680-HC-2018-DEL).
5. Without prejudice that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance of Rs.64,547,177 (net disallowance of Rs. 58,807,548) made under section 14A of the Act by not appreciating the fact that at best the disallowance was required to be restricted to Rs.5,739,629 as offered by the Appellant being expenditure related to earning of exempt dividend income as computed by the appellant after excluding strategic investments wherefrom no dividend income was earned during the year, in the course of appellate proceedings.
6. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not allow exemption ii/s 10A of Rs. 41,011,425 claimed by the Appellant on the grounds that no details of such exemption and Auditor’s Certificate were furnished with respect to such exemption however the Id. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law that, - the details of such exemption and certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant in Form 56F were duly furnished by the Appellant vide its submission dated Oct 30, 2014.
- Without prejudice, no opportunity was given to the Appellant to furnish the same during the final course of appellate proceedings.
1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)’) has erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of Rs. 20,692,899 made on account of foreign exchange fluctuation losses on loans given to wholly owned subsidiaries.
That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law without appreciation the fact that loans were given for working capital requirements of the subsidiaries and the Appellant earns substantial operating revenue from such subsidiaries.
3. That thelearned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law that the Appellant had duly offered profit on restatement of loans to the subsidiaries to tax in preceding years and losses on restatement such loans in current year are incidental to business and allowable under tax laws.
That thelearned CIT (A) has erred on the facts and in law that such loans were not advance for any fixed capital and losses on account of exchange fluctuation on loans needs to be transferred to the profit and loss account as per accounting principles and taxation laws.”
(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11)
On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,93,30,747/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of IT Service Charges.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the set off of brought forward losses of M/s Religare Technova Global Solution Limited of the amount of Rs. 17,50,37,021/- u/s 72A of the Income tax Act, 1961 is not acceptable because Information Service Division of M/s Religare Technova Global Solution Limited was transferred via slump sale and not by the amalgamation. The entire company, M/s Religare Technova Global Solution Limited was not transferred by amalgamation. Hence, brought forward losses should not be allowed to set off (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT” for short), letter dated 18/02/2022 has been received from Mr. Pardeep Kumar Lakhani, Insolvency Professional. The relevant portion of the aforesaid letter is reproduced as under:-
“This is to inform you that the Assessee Company - Dion Global Solutions Ltd. is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), vide the order dated 18.08.2020 of Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi Bench (Copy enclosed. The undersigned was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professions vie the same order and was subsequently confirmed as Resolution Professional vide order dated 07/10/2020 of Hon’ble NCLT, New Delhi (Copy enclosed)
It is further informed that pursuant to section 14 of the IBC, the Hon’ble NCLT vide its Order dated 18.08.2020 has also declared moratorium prohibiting the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority.
The provisions of Section 14 of the IBC are reproduced hereunder for your reference:
Section-14: Moratorium
More judgments on Section 14
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, SuratWTA 2/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, SuratWTA 1/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Narayan Industries Global Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT Circle 16(1), DelhiITA 8422/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Manpreet Estates LLP, Mumbai vs ACIT, Central Circle 8(3), MumbaiITA 4386/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026