← All Phrases

“Section 178(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 178Section 178(6)91 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 178(6) is Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction (126 Taxmann.com 132), cited in 192 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 178(6)

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
126 Taxmann.com 132 · 2021 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. This applies to statutory dues owed to the government and other authorities.

Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweis Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.
9 SCC 657 · 2021 · Reported
33
citing judgments

All claims, including statutory dues, that predate the approval of a resolution plan under the IBC stand extinguished by operation of law. No proceedings can be initiated or continued for such claims if they are not part of the approved plan.

PCIT v. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd.
18 SCC 789 · 2018 · Reported
33
citing judgments

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) overrides other laws, including the Income Tax Act, due to its non-obstante clause in Section 238. Proceedings initiated against a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency are prohibited under Section 14 of the IBC.

CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd.
284 ITR 434 · 2006 · Supreme Court
32
citing judgments

Interest under sections 234B and 234C is not attracted in cases where income is assessed under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions under section 115JB.

New Delhi Municipal Council v. Minosha India Ltd.
138 Taxmann.com 73 · 2022 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

The moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, will be excluded when calculating the limitation period for proceedings involving a corporate debtor. The Assessing Officer can seek re-institution of an appeal if the resolution process concludes.

236 ITR 832 (Guj) (para 21) Snowcem India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
313 ITR 170 · 2009 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Reopening assessment proceedings under Section 147 is permissible within four years, even if full and true particulars were provided during the original assessment, provided the Assessing Officer forms a prima facie opinion of underassessment or escapement of income.

CIT v. Natural Gems Ltd.
327 ITR 269 · 2010 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Interest under sections 234B and 234C is not leviable on tax determined under the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions, especially when prevailing judicial pronouncements supported this view at the relevant time. However, subsequent Supreme Court decisions have clarified that interest is leviable even under MAT provisions.

Palogix Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
135 Taxmann.com 73 · 2022 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Appeals filed by a corporate debtor before the Tribunal are dismissed as infructuous when proceedings cannot continue against the corporate debtor after an NCLT order, due to the moratorium period under the IBC Code.

Judgments citing Section 178(6)

M/S Raj Oil Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limini

ITA 1227/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1227/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1228/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1229/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit Cen. Cir-6(1), M/S Raj Oil Mills Ltd. बनाम/ R. No. 1905, Air India 224-230, Bellasis Road, Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Alexandra Cinema Hall, Mumbai-400 021 Nagpada, Mumbai-400 008 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccr0266J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 909/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Raj Oil Mills Ltd. Acit Cen. Cir-6(1), R. No. 1905, Air India Building, बनाम/ 224-230, Bellasis Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Alexandra Cinema Hall, Vs. Nagpada, Mumbai-400 008 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccr0266J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 04.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Ld. DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(3)Section 178(6)Section 7

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM 1

Mahavir Roads & Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limini

ITA 646/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 646 To 651/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit Cen. Cir-3(4), Mahavir Roads & R. No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Air India Building, Destination Builidng, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Above Mcdonal’S Restaurant, 400 021 Near Ghatkopar Chembur Flyover, Mumbai-400 071 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaecm8166G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rohan Deshpande, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 22.11.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Rohan DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, Ld
Section 13Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 31Section 33Section 7

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A