← All Phrases

“Section 30(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 30Section 30(2)12 judgments

METRIK INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 125/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 37Section 9

Statutory Authorities is NIL in accordance with the liquidation waterfall provided under Section 53 of the Code is NIL. Accordingly, the requirement of Section 30(2)(b) of the Code to pay at least liquidation value to Operational Creditors does not apply in this case. Further, Clause

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2079/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

given to the Presiding officer to accept the belated petition. Indian Income-tax,1922 is more or less same as the present Act. Section 30(2)of the said Act is almost identical to section 249(3)of the Act. Both the Acts allow the assessee to file appeals after

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2050/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

For Appellant: Advocate C. AnuragFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

given to the Presiding officer to accept the belated petition. Indian Income-tax,1922 is more or less same as the present Act. Section 30(2)of the said Act is almost identical to section 249(3)of the Act. Both the Acts allow the assessee to file appeals after

DBG LEASING AND HOUSING LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 8308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Year : 2008-09 Dbg Leasing & Housing Ltd., Vs Ito, Ward 7(1), New Delhi C-88, Gali No. 8, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032 (Pan: Aaacd0473F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR. DR
Section 147Section 29ASection 30(2)Section 31(1)

above discussion, this Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the Resolution Plan as filed and explained by the SRA meets the requirement of Section 30(2) of IBC. 11.3. The Resolution Applicant has provided the indicative timeline of events for implementation of the Resolution Plan at Page No. 243, which

CALYX CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CC 4 , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2500/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarcalyx Chemicals & V/S. Income Tax Officer, Pharmaceuticals Limited, बनाम Centre Circle – 4, Thane, 1408, 14Th Floor, Real Tech Maharashtra Park, Sector – 30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400 703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcc1457B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Narayan Atal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 37

able to pay back its debt and get back on its feet. 13. The Adjudicating Authority conducts an enquiry in terms of Section 30(2) of IBC on the point as to whether the Resolution Plan provides, inter alia, the repayment of the debts of Operational Creditors in the prescribed

M/S ORCHID PHARMA LTD. (FORMERLY M.S ORCHID CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.),CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 277/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.276 & 277/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd. [Formerly Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M.S. Orchid Chemicals & Income Tax, Pharmaceuticals Ltd.] 313, Orchid Central Circle 1(1), Towers, Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco0402B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. & Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Both Dated 28.02.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 238Section 271(1)(c)Section 30(2)Section 31(1)Section 35Section 36Section 37

Plan. The NCLT approved the above “Resolution Plan” as the said Plan was approved by the CoC since it is in compliance of section 30(2) of the Code vide its order dated 25.06.2019. 10. The ld. AR referred to page 124 to 130 of paper book and submits that ... aside the order of the NCLAT, confirmed the order of the NCLT approving the “Resolution Plan approved by the CoC in compliance of section 30(2) of the Code settling the operational creditors including the income-tax at NIL value. Therefore, in our opinion, the penalty imposed under section

M/S ORCHID PHARMA LTD. (FORMERLY M.S ORCHID CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.),CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 276/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.276 & 277/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd. [Formerly Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M.S. Orchid Chemicals & Income Tax, Pharmaceuticals Ltd.] 313, Orchid Central Circle 1(1), Towers, Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco0402B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. & Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Both Dated 28.02.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 238Section 271(1)(c)Section 30(2)Section 31(1)Section 35Section 36Section 37

Plan. The NCLT approved the above “Resolution Plan” as the said Plan was approved by the CoC since it is in compliance of section 30(2) of the Code vide its order dated 25.06.2019. 10. The ld. AR referred to page 124 to 130 of paper book and submits that ... aside the order of the NCLAT, confirmed the order of the NCLT approving the “Resolution Plan approved by the CoC in compliance of section 30(2) of the Code settling the operational creditors including the income-tax at NIL value. Therefore, in our opinion, the penalty imposed under section

RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

ITA 22/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 68Section 69C

High Court\nhas held as under:-\nWhen a memorandum of appeal is presented before an AAC,\nafter the expiration of the period fixed, section 30(2) provides\nthat he may admit the appeal if he is satisfied that the appellant\nhad sufficient cause for not presenting it within time ... merits.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(3)", "Section 68", "Section 69C", "Section 249(2)", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 260A", "Section 30(1)", "Section 30(2)", "Section 31(1)", "Section 33", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963", "Rule 45 of Income Tax Rules 1962" ], "issues": "The primary issue

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SUZUKI TEXTILES LTD. , BHILWARA

ITA 151/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 30(2)Section 31Section 36(1)(va)

perusal of the Resolution Plan, we are of the considered view that the Resolution Plan meets the requirement of Section 31 r/w Section 30(2) of the Code. Therefore, the present application IA (IBC) No. 590/JPR/2022 is allowed and the Resolution Plan is approved with the certain observations and compliances

MONNET ISPAT & ENERGY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 2486/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153A

thousand crores rupees, this Bench, considering the submissions of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the COC and looking at the compliance of Section 30(2) of the Code, approved this Resolution plan. 12. Thus, as could be seen from the aforesaid observations of the NCLT, debt due to various

MONNET ISPAT & ENERGY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 2485/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153A

thousand crores rupees, this Bench, considering the submissions of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the COC and looking at the compliance of Section 30(2) of the Code, approved this Resolution plan. 12. Thus, as could be seen from the aforesaid observations of the NCLT, debt due to various

RAJ RAYON INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. PCIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 830/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.830/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Raj Rayon Industries Ltd बिधम/ Pcit-3 Survey No. 177/1/3 & 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. 177/1/4, Village Surangi, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Silvassa-396230 (Ut Of Road, Mumbai-400020. Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu)-396230. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7820E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Mody Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 03.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

able to pay back its debt and get back on its feet. 13. The Adjudicating Authority conducts an enquiry in terms of Section 30(2) of IBC on the point as to whether the Resolution Plan provides, inter alia, the repayment of the debts of Operational Creditors in the prescribed