← All Phrases

“Section 60(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 60Section 60(6)19 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 60(6) is 60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. (349 ITR 309), cited in 76 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 60(6)

60 Taxman 248/193 ITR 321 (SC) 2. CIT v. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd.
349 ITR 309 · 2012 · High Court
76
citing judgments

A deduction or benefit, particularly under profit-linked incentive sections like 10A or 80IA, allowed in an earlier assessment year should not be denied in subsequent years unless there is a change in law or fresh material justifying a different view.

Tejas Network Ltd. v. DCIT
60 Taxmann.com 309 · 2015 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot question the correctness of the certificate issued by the prescribed authority for claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for scientific research expenditure. The deduction is limited to the amount approved and certified by the competent authority.

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.

NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd.
8 SCC 384 · 2012 · Reported
14
citing judgments

The entire moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is excluded when computing the limitation period for proceedings concerning a corporate debtor. This provision takes precedence over the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Avirat Stat Homes Venure (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer
102 Taxmann.com 60 · 2019 · High Court
12
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer has 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment if there is a direct nexus between the tangible material available on record and the belief formed.

Judgments citing Section 60(6)

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. Hindusthan National Glass and Industrieslimited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 338/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148ASection 14ASection 250

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sarga Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 665/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

I.T.O, Ward-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sarga Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Salt Lake

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 664/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

dealt with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com_73/172 SCL_675/8_SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

M/S Impex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.Ci.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1640/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144CSection 145(3)Section 250

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

D.Ci.T., Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Impex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1521/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144CSection 145(3)Section 250

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

M/S Implex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 293/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

M/S Implex Ferro Tech Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 292/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Known As M/S. Binani Cement Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 470/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S. Binani Cement Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 152/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

ACIT, Cir-14(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd.(Known As M/S Binani Cement Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

Binani Cement Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xxviii, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1726/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

Jasrati Education Solutions Limited, Gurgaon vs. Additional Joint Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 1148/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 238Section 30(4)Section 31

merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/ Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided

Jasrati Education Solutions Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Joint Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 1147/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 238Section 30(4)Section 31

merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/ Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided

Krishan Dev Verma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward - 1, Bhiwani

ITA 1147/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 238Section 30(4)Section 31

merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/ Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 899/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1145/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ecospace, Campus 2B, 11F/12 Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, (Old Plot No. Aa Ii/Blk 3), Chowringhee Square, Vs New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700069 North 24 Paragans, Kolkata - 7000156 (Pan: Aaccs5491A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Sureka, Ar Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, Dr Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-I, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ays 2009-10 & 2013- 14, Dated 28.02.2018 & 13.03.2018 Respectively. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of Vide This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited.: Ays: 2009-10 & 2013-14 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sureka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

with by the Supreme Court in NDMC v. Minosha (India) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 73/172 SCL 675/8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect

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

merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with “undecided” claims ... dealt with in Hon’ble Supreme Court in NDMC-v-Minosha (India) Ltd. reported in 2022 8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of Section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium 15 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel

Wizcraft International Entertainment P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC - 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2043/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 14Section 178(6)Section 238Section 60(6)

amended w.e.f. 01.11.2016, the Code shall have overriding effect. 6. It is further pertinent to note the provisions of section 60(6) of the Code, which reads as under: "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 or in any other law for the time being in force ... moratorium has been made under this Part, the period during which such moratorium is in place shall be excluded." 7. Recently, while interpreting section 60(6) of the Code, Hon'ble Supreme|Court in New Delhi Municipal Corporation v/s Minosha India Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.3470 of 2022 (arising

Asst. CIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wizcraft International Entrtainment P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1356/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 14Section 178(6)Section 238Section 250Section 60(6)Section 7

amended w.e.f. 01.11.2016, the Code shall have overriding effect. 6. It is further pertinent to note the provisions of section 60(6) of the Code, which reads as under: “(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 or in any other law for the time being in force ... moratorium has been made under this Part, the period during which such moratorium is in place shall be excluded.” 7. Recently, while interpreting section 60(6) of the Code, Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal Corporation v/s Minosha India Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.3470 of 2022 (arising