The Pr. Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Videocon Industries Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 1153 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1153 Bom
Judgement Date : 1 February, 2022

Bombay High Court

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Videocon Industries Ltd on 1 February, 2022

Bench: K.R. Sriram, N. J. Jamadar

                                                                              921-itxa-863-2017.doc




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                        INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.863 OF 2017

                      The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai    ...Appellant
                            vs.
                      M/s. Videocon Industries Limited          ...Respondent

                      Mr. Sham Walve, for the Appellant.

VISHAL                                      CORAM :     K.R. SHRIRAM &
SUBHASH                                                 N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2022 Date: 2022.02.02 11:01:21 +0530

P.C.:

. Mr. Walve states that in a recent judgment in Ghanshyam

Mishra and Sons vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstructions 1, the Apex

Court has taken a view that the claim will get extinguished upon a

resolution being approved by NCLT or a company is ordered to be

liquidated by NCLT. At the same time, Mr. Walve further states that

the Apex Court in order dated 15th September, 2021 in Civil

Application No. 3290 of 2017 in the case of Commissioner of Income

Tax-5 v/s. M/s. Jet Airways (India) Limited has noted Ghanshyam

Mishra (supra) and also observed that the fact that the appeal is

filed would amount to claim by the Department. Mr. Walve states

that Department may seek to even fasten criminal consequences, if

they succeed in this appeal, notwithstanding the fact that they may

1 2021 SCC Online SC 313.

Vishal Parekar 1/2 921-itxa-863-2017.doc

not be able to recover any money from Respondent.

2. Mr. Walve request matter be stood over by at least six weeks

to enable him to consider all these aspects and advise Appellant

accordingly.

3. Stand over to 15th March, 2022.



            (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)                (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)




Vishal Parekar                                                            2/2