Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (10) TMI 1156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the notice dated 13.01.2022 initiating the revision proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for Assessment Year 2017-18. 4. The brief facts are as under: 4.1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of electrical transmission line, who filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 06.11.2017 declaring total loss of Rs. 95,11,56,523/-. The case of the petitioner was thereafter selected for scrutiny assessment and order of assessment under Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce issued under Section 263 of the Act being unjust and illegal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settled legal position and in view of resolution plan being approved by order dated 14.10.2021, all past dues of the Income Tax Department got extinguished and therefore, the notice issued under Section 263 of the Act for revising the assessment under Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.2. In support of his submissions, he relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors reported in (20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Form 'C' for an amount of Rs. 648,89,62,395/-. In response to the said email, RP sought a clarification, as to whether the corporate guarantee had been invoked by the applicant. RP had not received any response till 21.2.2018 from EARC. Despite repeated requests made by RP, EARC did not respond to the query made by RP. From the record placed before NCLT, it was clear, that EARC had not invoked the corporate guarantee. NCLT therefore posed a question to itself, as to whether an uninvoked corporate guarantee could be considered as matured claim of the applicant. NCLT found, that once the moratorium was applied under Section 14 of I&B Code, EARC was prevented from invoking the corporate guarantee. NCLT further found, that the OMML's guarantee ....