AERENS JAI REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 9, 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 acknowledged that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has an overriding effect over other statutes, including the Income-tax Act. Therefore, all claims, including those of the Income-tax Department, are to be entertained by the Official Liquidator.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were filed against the orders of the CIT(A). The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional, and the assessee's counsel stated they were not pressing the appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, override the Income-tax Act, 1961, in cases of insolvency proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI
Order : 19.07.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of ld. CIT (A) pertaining to respective assessment years. 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) vide order dated 30.05.2023 has passed directions by appointing Shri Prabhakar Kumar as the Insolvency Resolution Professional under the provisions of the Insolvency and pressing the appeals.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records.
Provisions contained under section 238 of “the Code” are having an overriding effect over all other Central and State statutes including Income-tax Act as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. SLP (C) No.6483 of 2018 order dated 10.08.2018 by returning following findings :- “Given section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is obvious that the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-tax Act.”
In view of the matter, section 238 of the Code will have overriding effect over all other Central and State statutes including the Income-tax Act and all the claims including claim of the Income-tax Department under the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall be entertained by the Official Liquidator u/s 53 (1) of the Code. Keeping in view all these facts, ld. AR for the assessee stated at Bar that he does not press these appeals and same may be dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn having been become infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of July, 2023. Sd/- sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 19th day of July, 2023/TS
More judgments on Section 238
- DCIT221, Mumbai vs Nrc Limited, MumbaiITA 1333/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT221, Mumbai vs Nrc Limited, MumbaiITA 1332/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- DCIT221, Mumbai vs Nrc Ltd, MumbaiITA 1331/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Narayan Industries Global Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT Circle 16(1), DelhiITA 8422/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ambassador Building Solutions Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs ITO Ward 14(2), New DelhiITA 1314/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026