Case Law Details
Gayatri Projects Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
A reading of provisions under section 13 and 14 of IBC Code along with decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, clearly shows that once the proceedings have commenced by institution of application under section 7 or 9 or 10 of the Code, the continuance of the pending proceedings is prohibited and when once they reach the logical conclusion with due approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under sub section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. At any rate, for the time being, these appeals cannot be proceeded with during the continuance of the proceedings under the Code. However, depending upon the result of such proceedings before the adjudicating authority in respect of the corporate debtor, appropriate steps if any, may be taken by the appellant/respondent. We, therefore, granting leave to the appellants/respondents in all these appeals to seek the restoration of the appeals, if necessitated by the orders in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings, dismiss the appeals in limine.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
These above appeals are filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 12, Hyderabad, for the AY’s 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. For the sake of convenience, we dispose-of these appeals by this common order.
2. At the outset it is represented by both the sides that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) are pending against the assessee and as of now, Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) is seized with the jurisdiction.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
