Innovative Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank

1 SCC 407Reported decision2018#11956 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 102(2)Section 102(2) of IBCSection 13Section 13 of IBCSection 14Section 14 of IBCSection 143(1)Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act

Issues it is cited on

statutory duesgoing concernsection 31section 15section 13personcompanysection 14indiabusiness

Judgments citing Innovative Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank

S. Rajendran vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition)

The appeals are dismissed with

C.A. No.-007140 - 2022Supreme Court24 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Section 132Section 24Section 24(1)

…the enforcement of Section 67 of the Benami Act on 01.11.2016. IBC is not only the later enactment but also a specialised and exhaustive legislation governing insolvency and liquidation. In the event of 2 Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407 10 inconsistency, the later and more comprehensive insolvency code must prevail to ensure uniformity and certainty in the insolvency regime.3 14.4 Upon commencement of the CIRP, Section 14(1)(a) imposes a moratorium prohibiting institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Proceedings under the Benami Ac…

Charanbir Singh Sethi, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2774/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalcharanbir Singh Sethi Vs. Acit, Central Circle-19 Ar-717, The Aralias, Dlf Ara Centre, Golf Links, Dlf City, Jhandewalan, Phase-V, Gurgaon New Delhi – 110055 Haryana – 122009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasps9437K Appellant .. Respondent Amrit Pal Singh Chadha Vs. Acit, Central Circle 19 4410, Dlf Phase-V, Ara Centre, Kutub Enclave, Gurgaon Jhandewalan, Haryana – 122002 New Delhi – 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpc3215P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Amarjit Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 102(2)Section 143(1)

…ra (supra) which categorically holds that there is no special status to Central Government or State Government or any local authorities for the purpose of IBC and the words ‘other stakeholders’ include them. In Innovative Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407, referring to statement of objects and P a g e | 8 ITA Nos. 2774 & 2773/Del/2025 Charanbir Singh Sethi & Amrit Pal Singh Chadha (AY: 2013-14) reasons of IBC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 13 that: “One of the important objectives of the Code is to bring insolvency law in India under a single unified umbrella with the objective of…

Amrit Pal Singh Chadha, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2773/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalcharanbir Singh Sethi Vs. Acit, Central Circle-19 Ar-717, The Aralias, Dlf Ara Centre, Golf Links, Dlf City, Jhandewalan, Phase-V, Gurgaon New Delhi – 110055 Haryana – 122009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasps9437K Appellant .. Respondent Amrit Pal Singh Chadha Vs. Acit, Central Circle 19 4410, Dlf Phase-V, Ara Centre, Kutub Enclave, Gurgaon Jhandewalan, Haryana – 122002 New Delhi – 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpc3215P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Amarjit Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 102(2)Section 143(1)

…ra (supra) which categorically holds that there is no special status to Central Government or State Government or any local authorities for the purpose of IBC and the words ‘other stakeholders’ include them. In Innovative Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407, referring to statement of objects and P a g e | 8 ITA Nos. 2774 & 2773/Del/2025 Charanbir Singh Sethi & Amrit Pal Singh Chadha (AY: 2013-14) reasons of IBC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 13 that: “One of the important objectives of the Code is to bring insolvency law in India under a single unified umbrella with the objective of…

M/S Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 27/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 15Section 250Section 68Section 9

…ime being in force. A reference in this respect could be placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in 13 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. the cases of Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank and Another (2018) 1 SCC 407, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited (2018) 18 SCC 786 and Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited through the Authorised Signatory v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director and Others (2021) 9 SCC 657. 9.8. In view of the above, we are of the view that as per section 31 of the…

Comnr.of Income Tax vs. M/S.Times Traconp

ITA/87/2013HC Orissa09 Mar 2023

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Acquitted Of The Commission Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (Ni Act). 1 Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment? Yes.

For Appellant: Mr Pankaj Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate
Section 138Section 313

…2025:HHC:43252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 87 of 2013 Reserved on: 20.11.2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025. Ashwani Kumar ...Appellant Versus Raj Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr Pankaj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.,…

Sundaresh Bhatt vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

C.A. No.-007667 - 2021Supreme Court26 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 13(1)(a)Section 14(4)Section 33(2)Section 33(5)Section 60(5)Section 62(1)

…of all the stakeholders including alteration in the priority of payment of government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fund, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. An effective legal framework for timely 27 (2018) 1 SCC 407 Page 25 of 59 Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No.7731 of 2021 resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship. It would also improve Ease of Doing Business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. 3. The Co…

The Commissioner of Income tAx II vs. M/s. Softpro Systems (P) Limited

ITTA/262/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) For The Commission Of An Offence Punishable

For Appellant: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate, withFor Respondent: M/s Rupinder Singh Thakur and
Section 138Section 313

…2025:HHC:21725-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.262 of 2010 Reserved on: 26.06.2025 Date of Decision: 8th July, 2025 Shirgul Filling Station ....Appellant Versus Kamal Sharma ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : M/s Rupinder Singh Thakur and Bhavya Sharma, Advocates. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.05.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, F…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad vs. K.Sudha Rani

ITTA/87/2013HC Telangana25 Jun 2013

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Acquitted Of The Commission Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (Ni Act). 1 Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment? Yes.

For Appellant: Mr Pankaj Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate
Section 138Section 313

…2025:HHC:43252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 87 of 2013 Reserved on: 20.11.2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025. Ashwani Kumar ...Appellant Versus Raj Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr Pankaj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.,…

Innovative Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank (1 SCC 407) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax