TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interim Order Restrains Income Tax Authorities Amid Resolution Plan Proceedings</h1> <h3>Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Union of India & Ors. - TMI Issues:Challenged impugned orders by Income Tax authorities; Adjustment of refund against outstanding demand; Legality of demand raised by Income Tax Authorities; Initiation of reassessment and penalty proceedings; Compliance with approved Resolution Plan; Interpretation of relevant legal provisions; Application of Supreme Court judgment.Analysis:The petitioners challenged orders by Income Tax authorities, including those under Section 147/143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notices issued under Section 245 regarding settled matters pre-Transfer Date. They contested the adjustment of refunds against outstanding demands from previous assessment years. The main legal issue was whether the Income Tax Authorities were justified in raising demands, issuing notices, and continuing assessments for periods before the transfer date, despite the approved Resolution Plan stating no liability towards tax, fee, interest, or penalty for the Corporate Debtor.The facts of the case involved the insolvency proceedings against Binani Cement Limited, culminating in the approval of a Resolution Plan by Ultra Tech Cement Limited. The management takeover and name change to Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Limited were highlighted. Various letters were issued for the extinguishment of tax demands, with the Resolution Plan confirmed by the Supreme Court. The key question raised was the legality of the Income Tax Authorities' actions in light of the approved Resolution Plan and the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.The petitioners also challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (C) of the Income Tax Act for the relevant assessment years. They cited a Supreme Court judgment and provisions of law to support their contentions. The court noted that the respondents failed to justify their actions or distinguish the relevant Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the petitioners. Consequently, an interim order was issued restraining the Income Tax Authorities from acting contrary to the approved Resolution Plan until further orders or September 30, 2021.The court emphasized the need for detailed hearings based on affidavits to adjudicate the issues effectively. It directed the exchange of affidavits between the parties within specified timelines and scheduled the matter for final hearing after eight weeks. The court clarified that any findings or observations made in the interim order would not impact the final hearing on the merits of the writ petition. Additionally, an application for an interim order was disposed of as part of the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
