← All Phrases

“Section 7(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 7Section 7(5)16 judgments

ACIT-6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRJALA TELEHOLDINGS LTD, THANE

ITA 1558/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Judicial, Quasi-Judicial, Or Arbitral Authorities. 3. We Have Carefully Perused The Said Order Of The Nclt. Paragraph 40 Thereof Makes It Abundantly Clear That The Application Of The Financial Creditor Under Section 7(5) Of The Code Has Been Admitted & That The Moratorium Stipulated Under Section 14(1) Has Commenced From The Very Date Of That Order. The Relevant Portion Of The Nclt’S Direction Reads As Under:

Section 14(1)Section 143(3)Section 7Section 7(5)

carefully perused the said order of the NCLT. Paragraph 40 thereof makes it abundantly clear that the application of the financial creditor under section 7(5) of the Code has been admitted, and that the moratorium stipulated under section 14(1) has commenced from the very date of that order ... relevant portion of the NCLT’s direction reads as under: “Based on the above terms, the application stands admitted in terms of section 7(5) of the IBC, 2016 and the moratorium shall come into effect as of this date. A copy of the order shall be communicated

ACIT-6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NIRJALA TELEHOLDINGS LIMITED, THANE

ITA 1557/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Judicial, Quasi-Judicial, Or Arbitral Authorities. 3. We Have Carefully Perused The Said Order Of The Nclt. Paragraph 40 Thereof Makes It Abundantly Clear That The Application Of The Financial Creditor Under Section 7(5) Of The Code Has Been Admitted & That The Moratorium Stipulated Under Section 14(1) Has Commenced From The Very Date Of That Order. The Relevant Portion Of The Nclt’S Direction Reads As Under:

Section 14(1)Section 143(3)Section 7Section 7(5)

carefully perused the said order of the NCLT. Paragraph 40 thereof makes it abundantly clear that the application of the financial creditor under section 7(5) of the Code has been admitted, and that the moratorium stipulated under section 14(1) has commenced from the very date of that order ... relevant portion of the NCLT’s direction reads as under: “Based on the above terms, the application stands admitted in terms of section 7(5) of the IBC, 2016 and the moratorium shall come into effect as of this date. A copy of the order shall be communicated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DEHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2401/KOL/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

statute is the rule of literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. If section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 66. In Hiralal ... other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J ." 76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2400/KOL/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

statute is the rule of literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. If section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 66. In Hiralal ... other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J ." 76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2399/KOL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

statute is the rule of literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. If section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 66. In Hiralal ... other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J ." 76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2316/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

statute is the rule of literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. If section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 66. In Hiralal ... other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J ." 76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the\nrevenue stand dismissed

ITA 2315/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

statute is the rule of\nliteral interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.\nIf section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on\nthe Adjudicating Authority (NCLT).\n66.\nIn Hiralal ... nother than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J .\"\n76.\nThe fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word,\nthat is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the\nrevenue stand dismissed

ITA 2303/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

statute is the rule of\nliteral interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.\nIf section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on\nthe Adjudicating Authority (NCLT).\n66.\nIn Hiralal ... nother than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J .\"\n76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word,\nthat is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

RUNGTA IRRIGATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2257/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

statute is the rule of literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. If section 7(5)(a) of the IBC is construed literally the provision must be held to confer a discretion on the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 66. In Hiralal ... other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AE v. SEEI [(2004) 11 SCC 641J ." 76. The fact that Legislature used 'may' in Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC but a different word, that is, 'shall' in the otherwise almost identical provision of Section 9(5)(a) shows that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIMITYA HOTELS & RESORT LTD., DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1719/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Yanoranjan Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Baljeet Kaur, CIT(DR)
Section 14Section 14(1)Section 7(5)

payment of the Financial Debt for the default amount being committed above the threshold limit, the present Petition is admitted in terms of Section 7(5) of the IBC and accordingly, moratorium is declared) in terms of Section 14 of the Code. As a necessary consequence of the moratorium

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 145/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

ITA 5/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 738/CHANDI/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

ITA 3/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 144/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH