Case LawHigh Court › Inthehighcourtofdelhiatnewdelhi+W.p.(C)...

Inthehighcourtofdelhiatnewdelhi+W.p.(C) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 19 & Anr

High Court 01 Jul 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Inthehighcourtofdelhiatnewdelhi+W.p.(C) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 19 & Anr
Date of order
01 Jul 2025
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Inthehighcourtofdelhiatnewdelhi+W.p.(C) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 19 & Anr, the High Court (2025) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 6.The petition is disposed of in the abovesaid terms.The pendingapplication is also disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~119 *INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+W.P.(C) 10778/2024 CM APPL. 44362/2024SARE GURUGRAM PRIVATE LIMITED.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Ashish Mehta, Ms Aanchal Jainand Mr Bharat Jain, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE 19 & ANR. .....RespondentsThrough:Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. ZehraKhan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCsMs Anauntta Shankar and Ms RavichaSharma, Advocates for the Revenue.Mr Piyush Beriwal, Mr Kautilya Birat,Mr Nikhil Kumar Chaubey and MsJyotsna Vyas, Advocates for UOI. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R30.04.2025 % 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning theproceedings, as referred in Annexure P1 to the present petition. The saidAnnexure is set out below: - 2.The petitioner is essentially assailing the initiation of the proceedings under Sections 142(1),143(1)(a), 143(3), 148 153C, 270A, and 271(1)(c) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of the Assessment Years [AYs]2014-15 to 2021-22. 3.Concededly, the aforesaid proceedings relate to a period prior to24.04.2023 being the date of the approval order in respect of a resolution planprepared under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process .It isthe petitioner’s case that in view of the clean slate theory, the petitioner cannotbe vexed by any proceedings or demand, which relates to the period prior tothe order approving the resolution plan, if the said dues or liabilities are notcontemplated under the said plan. 4.Undisputedly, the controversy involved in the present case is coveredin favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court inGhanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited through the AuthorizedSignatory v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through theDirector & Others: Neutral Citation: 2021 INSC 250. 5.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and all proceedingsinitiatedinrespectofAYs2014-15to2021-22underSections142(1),143(1)(a), 143(3), 148 153C, 270A, and 271(1)(c) of the Act are setaside. 6.The petition is disposed of in the abovesaid terms.The pendingapplication is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 30, 2025 M TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any
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