Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Iii,...

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Iii, Delhi v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr

High Court 12 Dec 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Iii, Delhi v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr
Date of order
12 Dec 2023
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Iii, Delhi v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Signature Not Verified $~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 12.12.2023 + W.P.(C) 708/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-III, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr Shivendra Singh and Mr Puneet Singhal, Standing Counsels. versus INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms Anuska Sarkar, Advocate for Mr Kanisk Khetan, Advocate CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): 1. Mr Gaurav Gupta, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/revenue, says that the claim lodged with the Resolution Professional (RP) was rejected and, therefore, the petitioner/revenue is in the process of taking recourse to an appropriate remedy. 2. The fact remains that respondent no.2 is undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi Bench [in short, “NCLT”]. W.P.(C) 708/2014 Page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified 3. We were also informed on the previous date i.e., 11.09.2023, by Mr Kanisk Khetan, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 2, that the petitioner/revenue did not respond to the public announcement made by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). 4. Whichever way we look at it, at present, what cannot be denied is the fact that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is operative. Therefore, according to us, no purpose will be served in progressing the writ petition any further. 5. The writ petition is accordingly closed, with liberty to the petitioner/revenue to approach the court, if deemed appropriate, albeit as per the law, for reviving the petition, depending on the outcome of the proceedings pending before the NCLT. 6. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. GIRISH KATHPALIA, J. DECEMBER 12, 2023/rk W.P.(C) 708/2014
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan