← All Phrases

“Section 33(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 33Section 33(5)55 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 33(5) is CIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd. (35 Taxmann.com 280), cited in 51 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 33(5)

CIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 280 · 2013 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Loss incurred by certain types of companies in trading derivatives is considered speculative loss under the Explanation to Section 73, as the value of stock derivatives depends on shares. Such speculative losses are ineligible for set-off or carry forward against business income.

Judgments citing Section 33(5)

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Easun Reyrolle Limited, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2632/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2632/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. A.G. Sathyanarayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 250Section 33(5)

Further the ld DR fairly conceded the same during the course of hearing. In our considered view once the liquidation order is passed, section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, specifically mandates that no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted by or against the corporate

Hi Tech Grain Processing Pvt Ltd in Liquidation, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi

ITA 1581/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 139Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 33(5)Section 52Section 53

assessee company, a copy whereof has been filed before us. It is the case of the assessee that in terms of the Section 33(5) of the Act, when a Hi Tech Grain Processing Pvt. Ltd-In Liquidation vs. DCIT liquidation order has been passed no suit or other legal

Hi Tech Grain Processing Pvt Ltd-in Liquidation, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi

ITA 1580/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 139Section 14Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 33(5)Section 52Section 53

assessee company, a copy whereof has been filed before us. It is the case of the assessee that in terms of the Section 33(5) of the Act, when a Hi Tech Grain Processing Pvt. Ltd-In Liquidation vs. DCIT liquidation order has been passed no suit or other legal

Gigeo Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 97/NAG/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 40Section 40A(3)

other legal proceedings shall be initiated by or against the corporate debtor which is also applicable for pending proceedings and the proviso to section 33(5) also provides prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority to be obtained by the Official Liquidator. Pertinently, it is also to be observed that

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S Gigeo Construction Co.Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 488/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 40Section 40A(3)

other legal proceedings shall be initiated by or against the corporate debtor which is also applicable for pending proceedings and the proviso to section 33(5) also provides prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority to be obtained by the Official Liquidator. Pertinently, it is also to be observed that

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S Gigeo Construction Co.Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 486/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 40Section 40A(3)

other legal proceedings shall be initiated by or against the corporate debtor which is also applicable for pending proceedings and the proviso to section 33(5) also provides prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority to be obtained by the Official Liquidator. Pertinently, it is also to be observed that

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Varun Resources Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2017-18

ITA 3052/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt, AR
Section 147Section 279Section 33Section 446

instituted against the company. Therefore, the addition made against the appellant company is not sustainable in law in view of provisions of section 33(5) of IBC, 2016. Therefore, the addition made by AO is hereby deleted. 5.1.6. Accordingly, the first ground of appeal is allowed

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Varun Resources Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2017-18

ITA 3051/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt, AR
Section 147Section 279Section 33Section 446

instituted against the company. Therefore, the addition made against the appellant company is not sustainable in law in view of provisions of section 33(5) of IBC, 2016. Therefore, the addition made by AO is hereby deleted. 5.1.6. Accordingly, the first ground of appeal is allowed

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Varun Resources Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2017-18

ITA 3050/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt, AR
Section 147Section 279Section 33Section 446

instituted against the company. Therefore, the addition made against the appellant company is not sustainable in law in view of provisions of section 33(5) of IBC, 2016. Therefore, the addition made by AO is hereby deleted. 5.1.6. Accordingly, the first ground of appeal is allowed

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Pks Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1801/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 147Section 148Section 33Section 7

official liquidator, the assessee company becomes defunct and the official liquidator steps into the shoes of the assessee. Considering the provisions of Section 33(5) of the IBC, 2016, wherein it is stated as under: “(5) Subject to section 52, when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Pks Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1141/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 147Section 148Section 33Section 7

official liquidator, the assessee company becomes defunct and the official liquidator steps into the shoes of the assessee. Considering the provisions of Section 33(5) of the IBC, 2016, wherein it is stated as under: “(5) Subject to section 52, when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Pks Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1140/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 147Section 148Section 33Section 7

official liquidator, the assessee company becomes defunct and the official liquidator steps into the shoes of the assessee. Considering the provisions of Section 33(5) of the IBC, 2016, wherein it is stated as under: “(5) Subject to section 52, when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Pks Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1139/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 147Section 148Section 33Section 7

official liquidator, the assessee company becomes defunct and the official liquidator steps into the shoes of the assessee. Considering the provisions of Section 33(5) of the IBC, 2016, wherein it is stated as under: “(5) Subject to section 52, when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit

ACIT Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Varun Resources Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 33(5)

order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who deleted the addition made by assessing officer as not sustainable in view of section 33(5) of IBC 2016 as the assessee company was under liquidation process without adjudicating the case on merit. 3 ITA No 2012/MUM/2024. Varun Resources Limited

Srs Modern Sales Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-II, Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms, as indicated above

ITA 6060/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10Section 33Section 33(5)Section 37

contention, the learned counsel has filed a copy of the order passed by the learned NCLT. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that as per section 33(5) of the I&B Code, the present appeal cannot be proceeded and may be disposed of accordingly. Learned DR fairly conceded the aforesaid factual

M/S Varun Resources Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partially allowed

ITA 4518/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the NCLT during the course of assessment proceedings. Notice was issued to the liquidator Mr. Sanjeev Maheshwari but for no avail. It was learnt that assessee under reported income as Rs 34,06,89,638/- as per order dated 3

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 274Section 69A

barred from determining the tax dues during the moratorium imposed upon the appellant assessee/corporate debtor in terms of section 14 or section 33(5) of the IBC 2016. In view of our finding given at point No. 1 and 2 above, the case deserves to be restored back

M/S Varun Resources Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partially allowed

ITA 4517/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 33(1)Section 446Section 44A

barred from determining the tax dues during the moratorium imposed upon the appellant assessee/corporate debtor in terms of section 14 or section 33(5) of the IBC 2016. In view of our finding given at point No. 1 and 2 above, the case deserves to be restored back

Essar Projects India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1992/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 238Section 33(5)Section 52

actionable claims of Corporate Debtor are under the control and custody of the Liquidator. 5. It submitted that as per the provisions of Section 33(5) of the Code, a moratorium period has been declared vide the NCLT Order prohibiting the institution of suits or other legal proceedings against ... continuation of any proceedings till the completion of the Liquidation proceedings will be against the provisions of the Code. The provisions of section 33(5) of the IBC Code are reproduced hereinbelow: "33. Initiation of liquidation (1) Where the Adjudicating Authority- …………………… ………………….. (5) Subject to section 52, when a liquidation order

Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit-7, New Delhi

ITA 6400/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 33Section 33(5)Section 33(7)Section 34Section 5Section 68

Moratorium passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 shall cease to have its effect and a fresh Moratorium under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code shall commence; v. Liquidator shall follow up and continue to investigate the financial affairs of the Corporate Debtor

ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3536/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 33Section 33(5)Section 33(7)Section 34Section 37(1)Section 5

Moratorium passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 shall cease to have its effect and a fresh Moratorium under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code shall commence; v. Liquidator shall follow up and continue to investigate the financial affairs of the Corporate Debtor