https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783896 Reopening under s.148 of the Income-tax Act against the post-resolution corporate debtor for a pre-closing period was held impermissible because issuance of such notice after approval of the resolution plan violated the IBC framework and the binding terms of the plan, which extinguished past liabilities of the previous management. The courts further held that s.148 cannot be invoked merely to collect evidence concerning third parties/ex-promoters, for which s.133(6) provides the appropriate mechanism, and that s.148 cannot be used when the proceedings are not for tax recovery. SC declined interference under Art.136 and dismissed the SLP, thereby sustaining quashing of the s.148 notice. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783896 Reopening under s.148 of the Income-tax Act against the post-resolution corporate debtor for a pre-closing period was held impermissible because issuance of such notice after approval of the resolution plan violated the IBC framework and the binding terms of the plan, which extinguished past liabilities of the previous management. The courts further held that s.148 cannot be invoked merely to collect evidence concerning third parties/ex-promoters, for which s.133(6) provides the appropriate mechanism, and that s.148 cannot be used when the proceedings are not for tax recovery. SC declined interference under Art.136 and dismissed the SLP, thereby sustaining quashing of the s.148 notice. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783896