From Approval to Restart: Avoidable Pitfalls in Resolution Plan Implementation
By; CA Rronak Bagaria, CA Shreyans Shah
The NCLT's approval of a resolution plan ends the CIRP, but not the work. By March 2026, 1,419 CIRPs had yielded approved resolution plans, with creditors realising over ₹4 lakh crore.1 Each had to be put into effect through tax offices, municipal bodies, electricity boards, regulators, auditors and stock exchanges, most of which took no part in the CIRP. Drawing on our work on resolution mandates and on reported orders, this note sets out some of the implementation bottlenecks and key considerations, how tribunals and courts have dealt with them, and what the plan, the information memorandum and the approval order can do about them. The note is confined to domestic SRAs and does not deal with FEMA or related laws. It covers the implementation of resolution plans only, and not liquidation.
Key takeaways
1. Approval is not closure. The 2026 amendment makes implementation a part of the plan itself. After approval, the SRA can rely only on what the plan and the approval order actually say.
2. Pre-approval statutory claims are settled. Dues of any government or local authority not provided for in the plan stand extinguished, and courts now apply this consistently. What remains is the cost of answering notices, together with claims the plan provides for, post-approval dues and compliance gaps.
3. Restarting the business needs more than the law. GST registrations, credit ledgers, licences, consents and land approvals still have to be cleared one by one, and lapsed licences obtained afresh. Specific directions in the approval order save time.
4. Tax on the plan's own outcome stays with the company. The write-back is taxed according to the type of liability; past losses survive only if the tax department was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Tribunals do not grant immunity from tax on the plan's own arrangements or advance exemptions.
5. Accounting needs continuity. Accounting standards offer no fresh start, and business transitions show in the financial statements. Write-backs, instrument terms, the date control passes and the order of conversions decide the reported numbers.
6. Instruments for unsustainable debt have effects beyond the plan. Equity-like instruments change creditor rights if the company fails again, and company and securities laws limit what can be issued.
7. Records and filings outlast the RP's role. The RP is functus officio on approval, so the filing backlog and the records handover are best completed before then.
8. The monitoring committee supervises; it does not decide disputes. The committee now has a statutory basis. Its value lies in a proper record, and disputes remain for the NCLT.
Terms used in this note
CIRP Commencement Date: the date the NCLT admits the company into the corporate insolvency resolution process. Pre-CIRP refers to the period before this date.
Approval Date: the date the NCLT approves the plan under Section 31. Pre-approval refers to the entire period up to the Approval Date, including the CIRP period. Section 31 extinguishes pre-approval claims not provided for in the plan.
Effective Date: the date on which the plan states it takes effect, often after conditions are met. It may fall after the Approval Date.
SRA: successful resolution applicant; RP: resolution professional; CoC: committee of creditors; MC: monitoring committee; company: the corporate debtor.
Figure 1: Key dates from CIRP to restart
1. Approval is not closure
The approval order settles the economics of the resolution; whether the SRA actually receives the business described in the plan depends on what follows. Three points frame this note.
Implementation is now part of the plan. Under the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026, mostly in force from 26 May 2026,2 the NCLT must be satisfied that the plan provides for its effective implementation. Every plan must provide for a monitoring committee (including an IP and representatives of the creditors and the SRA) to implement and supervise it. The NCLT may approve implementation first and decide distribution later. Anyone bound by the plan, including a creditor, can be penalised for acting against it.3
Only the written terms count. Tax officers, municipal bodies, auditors and courts read the plan and the approval order, not the negotiations behind them. A relief refused in the approval order cannot be obtained later through an application to the same bench, which may at most clarify its order; the remedy is an appeal.4 Directions that only give effect to the Code, such as revocation of a GST cancellation, unblocking of a ledger or service of the order on named authorities, are routinely granted; exemptions from future law, such as from tax on the write-back or from fresh approvals, are not, and should be priced into the bid rather than assumed.
Most implementation risk lies outside the CIRP. It sits with authorities and counterparties that often took no part in the process. The 2026 amendment helps through continuity of licences, a one-year window for approvals under other laws and an express bar on assessment proceedings for pre-approval periods. The rest depends on drafting and supervision. Annexure A summarises the amended provisions.
2. Pre-approval statutory claims: the clean slate is settled
Once a plan is approved, the SRA takes over the company on a clean slate. All claims that are not part of the approved plan stand extinguished, including dues of the Central Government, State Governments and local authorities, and no proceedings can be started or continued for the period before approval.5 The 2019 amendment to Section 31(1) made the plan binding on these authorities in express terms. The 2026 amendment goes further. Section 31(6) bars proceedings “including proceedings for assessment”, and Explanation III applies the bar to all plans approved since the Code came into force, except matters that have attained finality. Separately, Section 32A protects the company and its property from action for offences committed before the CIRP, once control has passed under the plan to persons not connected with those offences.6
The ecosystem has well recognised and internalised these principles. Built up and reinforced over a series of judgments, they are now applied consistently by tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court, across every type of levy.
Income tax. Demands raised after approval for pre-approval periods that the plan does not provide for cannot be enforced; otherwise the SRA would not be able to restart the business on a clean slate.7 Reassessment notices, assessments and search-related proceedings for those periods have been quashed.8 Refunds due to the company cannot be adjusted against extinguished demands.9
GST, VAT and customs. A demand raised after approval, where the department did not participate in the CIRP, is without jurisdiction.10 A pre-deposit kept beyond the amount the plan allots to the department must be refunded with interest.11 A show cause notice issued during the CIRP does not keep alive a claim that was never filed.12
Municipal and electricity dues. Recovery of property tax for periods before the plan's Effective Date has been stayed where the municipality filed no claim.13 Pre-CIRP electricity dues, including late payment surcharge, cannot be made a condition for restoring supply or giving a new connection. The NCLT can decide such disputes under Section 60(5)(c), and Section 238 gives the Code precedence over the Electricity Act.14
Group companies. Protection has been extended to a subsidiary where the plan expressly covered it, the tax department was heard before approval and the approval order was clear.15
Figure 2: The clean slate at a glance
What the clean slate does not cover
The clean slate settles liability; it does not stop notices. Practitioners estimate that tax and utility departments file late claims in about a third of CIRPs, often followed by protective notices after approval to keep limitation alive,16 and our experience is similar. Each notice still has to be answered, and some have to be taken to a High Court or the NCLT. Beyond the time and cost of answering notices, residual exposure arises in the following three areas:
Dues for the period after approval, or after the Effective Date where the plan so provides, are payable in the normal course. Where a plan links the cut-off for past claims to its Effective Date, courts have given effect to it.17 Claims actually filed are dealt with as the plan provides; a plan that names an authority and sets aside an amount for it creates an obligation to pay that amount.
Compliance gaps, as distinct from dues. The clean slate extinguishes claims for money and proceedings for past periods. It does not regularise a structure built without approval, renew a lapsed consent, certify a boiler or validate a missing registration. These are continuing obligations of the company, which the new owner must cure to operate. Plans should list such gaps and budget the time and cost of curing them.
Assets the plan does not account for. Plans should state clearly who is entitled to amounts that may arise after approval from events before it. Insurance claims pending at the CIRP Commencement Date, recoveries from avoidance applications and amounts recovered for assets found missing, if left unaddressed, may lead to disputes between creditors and the SRA and delay implementation.
What the plan can do. Deal specifically with every claim filed. For claims not filed, provide generally that all other pre-approval dues of government, local and utility authorities stand extinguished, naming the known authorities in that clause, and exercise commercial prudence in allotting amounts to them, if any. Ask for the approval order to approve the relief clauses by their numbers, and serve it on each authority soon after approval with a covering letter citing Section 31.
3. Restarting the business: GST, licences, land and approvals
The clean slate settles what is owed. It does not reactivate a GST registration, unblock a credit ledger or transfer a lease; these steps lie with authorities outside the NCLT's direct supervision, and are where implementation safeguards and timelines need to be firmed up.
GST registration and credit
During the CIRP, the company is treated as a separate person for GST. The IRP or RP takes a new registration in each state, the original registration is not to be cancelled, and the balance in the original credit ledger is not carried over.18 These rules cover the CIRP period only; at handover, the SRA must decide which registration continues and what happens to the credit left in the original one. The transfer route under Section 18(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 41 is meant for mergers and business transfers, and may not fit. The following limits under the general GST law also apply:
where stock was lost, destroyed or written off before the CIRP, input tax credit on it is liable to reversal under Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act, 2017 (and the corresponding State GST laws); if the department did not claim this in the CIRP it is extinguished, but a notice could well be expected;
where input tax credit had already become time-barred under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act on the date the registration was cancelled, Section 16(6) cannot revive it, so credit in a registration that stayed cancelled through the CIRP may be lost whatever the plan says;19
a credit ledger blocked as a recovery measure under Section 79 of the CGST Act remains blocked even when recovery is stayed; the stay prevents amounts being debited but does not undo the block, so a block linked to an extinguished demand may need a specific direction to be lifted;20
where returns are not filed, the department cancels the registration. Once the window to apply for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act (currently 90 days, extendable within prescribed limits) has passed, it cannot be restored administratively, and Section 39(10) bars filing of any subsequent return while earlier ones remain pending. Until this is resolved, the company cannot file returns or pay current taxes under its original registration, and its customers cannot claim input tax credit.
The special procedure under the March 2020 notification and circular21 now governs GST compliance during the CIRP. Matters it does not address, particularly those arising at handover and after approval, such as revocation of cancellation, filing of pending returns, lifting of ledger blocks linked to extinguished demands and refund of balances adjusted against them, may be set out in the plan, so that the NCLT may issue such directions as it deems fit and necessary, consistent with the applicable GST law.
Figure 3: GST checks at handover
Licences, approvals and land
Section 31(4) gives the SRA one year from approval, or a longer period if the relevant law allows, to obtain approvals under other laws. Where applicable, CCI approval must now be obtained before the plan is submitted to the NCLT; the Supreme Court, by majority, had earlier required it before approval by the CoC.22 Section 31(5) provides that licences, permits, registrations, quotas, concessions and clearances cannot be suspended or terminated for their remaining term, as long as the conditions for that term are met. Regulated businesses still depend on approvals from their sector regulators, such as RBI, IRDAI or SEBI, whose timing the SRA does not control. Land on lease from a development authority adds another layer, as the authority is both a creditor and the owner whose continued support and timely consents may be necessary for implementation.
Section 31(5) does not, however, revive a licence or consent that has expired. A unit idle for months may find its pollution control consents, boiler registration, factory licence or fire safety certificate lapsed; these have to be applied for afresh, often after repairs and fresh inspection, and building approvals may also need to be confirmed or regularised. The implementation schedule should list each with a realistic time estimate, because the restart date depends on the farthest of them.
Delay caused by such external events may not, by itself, be a default by the SRA. One may draw an inference from the Bhushan Power & Steel matter, where the Supreme Court accepted that delays caused by attachments, the related appeals and pending litigation could not be attributed to the SRA or the CoC.23 In practice, list every mutation, consent, NOC and approval required in the plan with its Section 31(4) timeline, serve the approval order on each authority at once, and record the reason for every delay as it occurs.
4. Tax on the plan's own outcome
While the plan may deal with the extinguishment of debt, it cannot decide how that is taxed. The write-back arises on implementation, so Section 31(6), which deals with claims for the period before approval, does not cover it. The tax falls on the company, now under the SRA's control, and four questions decide the exposure.
What liability is written back. The type of the original liability decides the treatment, not the Code. Where a loan taken for capital assets was waived, the Supreme Court held that the waiver was not taxable under Section 28(iv) (because the benefit was in cash) or under Section 41(1) (because the loan was not a trading liability) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.24 Section 28(iv) has since been substituted to cover benefits “in cash or in kind” with effect from 1 April 2024, which weakens the first limb of that reasoning for later years.25 A waived loan used for trading purposes risks being taxed as a revenue receipt.26 Interest previously claimed as an expense, and trade payables written back, fall under Section 41(1). Interest already disallowed under Section 43B is not taxed again, which often lowers the real exposure, as stressed companies usually stop paying interest well before admission. Annexure C sets out the position.
When it is taxed. The write-back is recognised when the liability ends. That is usually the plan's Effective Date or closing date rather than the Approval Date, and the gap can move it into a different tax year.
What absorbs it. Brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation can absorb the write-back only if the exception under Section 79(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies, which requires the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Where the RP had served notice on the tax department and no objection was raised, carry-forward has been allowed, subject to the department being heard,27 and the Revenue's argument that the clean slate also wipes out the company's own losses has been rejected.28 IBBI now requires the information memorandum to disclose carry-forward losses by type and year of expiry.29 Losses can be carried forward only if the return for the year of loss was filed on time, so the RP should file any return that falls due during the CIRP.30 Whether the company opted for Section 115BAA decides whether MAT applies at all; for a company still paying MAT, Section 115JB allows a company admitted into CIRP to reduce book profit by both brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.31 A pre-Ind AS position keeping a capital receipt, such as a waived loan used for capital assets, out of book profit remains arguable, albeit weaker given that Ind AS routes the gain through profit or loss.32
Whether it can be cleared in advance. NCLTs do not grant advance exemptions or immunity from future tax on the write-back, such as from Section 41(1) or MAT, and an exemption refused in the approval order cannot be obtained later through an application to the same bench.33
Tax on the haircut therefore has to be priced into the bid; it cannot be fixed through the approval order. With the Income-tax Act, 2025 applying from 1 April 2026, each provision above should be mapped to its new equivalent before the bid model is finalised.
Figure 4: Tax on the write-back: four questions
Where the timing of the write-back matters, plans may also consider acquiring the debt rather than having it waived upfront. A tribunal has held that where a lender assigns a loan at a discount and no waiver reaches the borrower, the discount does not, by itself, end the borrower's liability or create taxable income for it.34 As RBI's directions permit asset reconstruction companies (ARCs) meeting prescribed thresholds to act as resolution applicants,35 assignment of debt to an ARC as part of the resolution plan may offer a plausible route for implementation, provided it has genuine commercial substance and consideration, any later conversion or waiver is treated in accordance with law, and the implementation timelines are documented in the plan.
5. Accounting and consolidation
Ind AS has no fresh-start accounting. The plan's effect has to be built up entry by entry, integrating two sets of accounts, the company's and the SRA's, and the result affects MAT, loan covenants and listing compliance. These points are best agreed with the auditors before the plan is filed. Many unlisted corporate debtors report under the Accounting Standards (Indian GAAP), where the conclusions on timing and MAT still hold but the Ind AS rules below do not apply as stated; the SRA's framework may also differ, which affects consolidation.
In the company's books
Extinguished debt. Under Ind AS 109, the difference between the carrying amount of the debt, including accrued interest, and the amount paid is taken to profit or loss. This is the gain that drives the MAT exposure discussed in Section 4 (Tax on the plan's own outcome).
Debt converted into equity. Appendix D to Ind AS 109 (Financial Instruments) requires shares issued to settle debt to be measured at fair value, and the gap between that fair value and the debt converted goes to profit or loss. It does not apply where the creditor acts as an existing shareholder, where the creditor and the company are under common control both before and after the conversion, or where conversion follows the original terms of the instrument. A lender affiliated with the SRA may fail the common-control test, as the SRA acquires control only through the plan; the conversion gain then reaches book profit and may attract MAT.
Classifying instruments. Under Ind AS 32, preference shares and convertible debentures count as equity only if the company is never obliged to pay cash and conversion is into a fixed number of shares. A compulsory coupon is a liability, and a conversion ratio that varies with value takes away the equity nature of the instrument. Either can undo the deleveraging the plan intends.
Debt that continues on revised terms. Where the present value of the revised cash flows differs by 10% or more from the original, the old liability is derecognised and the new one recorded at fair value; the day-one gain enters book profit at once, while the interest unwind reduces it only over later years.
Capital restructuring. Shareholder approval for steps under the plan is deemed granted under the Explanation to Section 30(2). Setting off losses against capital has no tax or MAT effect for the company; for shareholders, cancellation of shares is treated as a transfer.36 Auditors will expect a reconciliation from each paragraph of the approval order to each accounting entry.
In the SRA's consolidated accounts
Under Ind AS 103, the acquisition date is the date control passes, usually the Effective Date or closing date after conditions are met, not the Approval Date; losses in between change the fair values recorded. A bargain purchase gain, common in distressed acquisitions, is kept out of profit: it is recognised in other comprehensive income and accumulated in capital reserve where the rationale is clearly evidenced, and taken directly to capital reserve otherwise. Fair-value step-ups create deferred tax liabilities under Ind AS 12. Where a listed company issues shares for the SRA's own business, the company legally acquired may become the acquirer for accounting purposes.
6. Instruments for unsustainable debt
Plans for larger companies with several lenders commonly split debt into a part the business can service and a part converted into equity-like instruments; plans for smaller companies with fewer secured lenders are more often settled in cash upfront. Where instruments are used, the law on each choice is now reasonably clear, and its effects reach beyond the plan.
Dissenting creditors. Financial creditors who vote against the plan must receive, in money and in priority to those who vote for it, at least the amount they would receive in liquidation.37 The cash needed for them should be worked out before the vote.
Creditor rights if the company fails again. Compulsorily convertible debentures have been held to be equity, not financial debt, on the terms of the instruments before the Court;38 optionally convertible instruments are read on their terms and may be treated partly as debt and partly as equity.39 Lenders taking CCDs or CCPS for the unsustainable part are likely to lose their financial creditor status for that part if the company fails again. Lenders who want a future seat on a CoC need redemption features and must accept debt-like accounting.
Equity commitments. CCDs issued by the SRA have been accepted as meeting an upfront equity infusion requirement.40
Companies and securities laws. Some of the common areas of deliberation for implementation are as under:
A company cannot ordinarily issue shares at a discount. Section 53(2A) of the Companies Act, 2013 permits a discounted issue to creditors converting debt under a statutory resolution plan or a debt restructuring scheme in line with RBI guidelines; its application to IBC plans is not settled, so plans often reduce the face value of existing shares before issuing new ones.
Redeemable preference shares remain subject to the redemption limit in Section 55 of the Companies Act, 2013: twenty years, or thirty for notified infrastructure projects.
For listed companies, acquisitions under an approved plan are exempt from the open-offer requirement of the SEBI Takeover Regulations, and public shareholding must be at least 5%, rising to 10% within twelve months and 25% within three years.41 Shares allotted to the SRA may be locked in, so public shareholding usually has to come from a fresh issue, whose cost belongs in the plan.
Re-listing a suspended or delisted company can take months. One bench has directed the exchanges to treat re-listing under a plan as a fresh listing, without pre-CIRP fines, within 30 days; the Supreme Court has, however, directed that re-listing await the outcome of the exchange's pending appeal.42
Stamp duty on issues and transfers under the plan should be provided for in its costs.
7. Records, filings and handover
Upon approval of the plan, the RP is deemed functus officio, but the company's legal obligations continue. The resulting gap shows most often in filings and in records.
Filings. While the company is under CIRP, the RP may file pending financial statements and annual returns as attachments to e-form GNL-2 at the normal fee, where this is done in line with NCLT directions. This concession lasts only “till such time the company remains under CIRP”.43 In our experience, RPs file the statements for years within their tenure, but earlier years are often left pending; after approval, the company has to file them with additional fees and faces penalties under Sections 92 and 137 of the Companies Act, 2013, usually discovered when it applies for a change of name or registered office. The backlog is best made the RP's responsibility before approval. Failing that, MCA compliance schemes help: CCFS-2026 did not exclude companies that had been through CIRP, and offered reduced additional fees and immunity where filings were made in time.44
Records. Only the IRP or RP can seek directions under Section 19(2) against former management that does not cooperate, and once the plan is approved the RP can no longer file fresh applications, except to pursue those already pending.45 The SRA has no similar remedy, so any application for missing records is best made before approval. Where records were lost or destroyed, the information memorandum should say so. The plan should require the RP to hand over a signed index of the records, assets and access credentials in its possession, listing what could not be obtained, and provide that liabilities not reflected in those records do not bind the SRA.
8. Monitoring the implementation
The monitoring committee's authority comes from the approved plan and the approval order. It supervises implementation; it does not decide disputes. The NCLAT has set aside a committee's reduction of a dissenting creditor's payout as beyond its jurisdiction, holding that the committee “cannot assume the role of the CoC or the Adjudicating Authority to revisit or modify the terms of the plan”; once the plan is approved, a creditor's entitlement cannot be reopened even by the CoC.46 Disputes during implementation remain for the NCLT under Section 60(5)(c).
Questions the plan leaves open rest with the CoC, which, the Supreme Court has held, continues until the plan is implemented. In the Bhushan Power & Steel matter, the Court upheld a clause allowing the CoC, by a 66% vote, to extend the implementation period (as to time, not terms), and held that interim earnings could not be distributed to creditors as neither the request for resolution plans nor the plan provided for it.47 Plans should therefore state who may extend timelines, on what grounds, and who is entitled to interim earnings.
Figure 5: Who decides what during implementation
The 2026 amendment gives the committee a statutory basis: Section 30(2)(d) now requires every plan to provide for implementation and supervision through a committee of a resolution professional or other insolvency professional, representatives of creditors and the resolution applicant, on conditions IBBI is yet to specify.48 Section 67B provides for a penalty on anyone bound by the plan who acts against it, the SRA included. The SRA's protection against penalty for delays it does not control lies in the plan: clear conditions precedent, defined events outside its control and a mechanism to extend timelines on those grounds. Until the regulations are issued, the committee's powers, quorum, reporting, tenure and costs are best written into the plan. Its minutes are the most reliable record of the reasons for delay and of extensions granted, and that record is what a tribunal will look for.
A decade into the Code, the clean slate is accepted law, and the 2026 amendment has written much of the implementation framework into the Code itself. What remains is execution, and four points stand out.
First, time is of the essence: every month between approval and restart erodes value, and the enablers implementation needs are better built into the plan than sought later through clarification orders. Second, the information gaps a company carries after approval, such as missing records, pending filings, authorities that did not claim, and licences and approvals still to be obtained, are better identified and documented in the plan than addressed through specific reliefs sought from courts and tribunals during implementation. Third, with the clarity of law and jurisprudence now available, the tax and accounting effects of a plan, from the write-back and use of losses to MAT and the treatment of instruments, can be foreseen and structured efficiently at the bidding stage.
Finally, the feasibility and viability of a plan should be judged not only by its commercial prudence and its compliance with the Code, but also by whether it secures, in step with one another, the outcomes needed to restart the company's operations. That is where careful plan drafting and independent supervision of implementation add the most value. A checklist drawn from this note is at Annexure D.
Annexure A IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026: provisions relevant to implementation
Most provisions came into force on 26 May 2026 (MCA notification S.O. 2625(E) dated 22 May 2026).
Annexure B Principal decisions referred to in this note
Citations follow the case number, date and neutral or reported citation printed on each order. Decisions are grouped by theme.
Annexure C Tax treatment of write-backs by type of liability
Notes: (i) the year of tax is the year the liability ends, usually the Effective Date or closing date; (ii) for companies paying MAT, Section 115JB allows a company admitted into CIRP to reduce book profit by brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation; (iii) references are to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and should be mapped to the Income-tax Act, 2025 for years from 1 April 2026.
Annexure D Implementation checklist
About the Authors:
Rronak Bagaria is a Mumbai-based registered Insolvency Professional and Chartered Accountant with over 18 years of experience, focused on the IBC and stressed-assets ecosystem. He is experienced in managing complex insolvencies including managing going concerns for Corporate Debtors and achieving significant recoveries for creditors. Prior to leading the practice at Preserve Special Situation Assets Advisors, Rronak set up and spearheaded operations in the Retail / SME division at J.C. Flowers ARC.
Shreyans Shah is a Surat-based Chartered Accountant and IBBI-registered Insolvency Professional. He is the Founding Partner of Vista Solvency LLP and practices through Shah Kailash & Associates LLP with presence across Surat, Ahmedabad and Mumbai. His practice covers the full arc of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (CIRPs, liquidation, personal-guarantor matters) and a dedicated portfolio of support services for the wider IBC ecosystem. Having worked on 100+ CIRP, liquidation, personal-guarantor and bankruptcy matters across NCLT benches nationally, he has built a practice from the ground up alongside his father and mentor, CA Kailash Shah (also a registered IP).
Disclaimer: Views expressed here are personal to the authors and for general information and discussion purposes only. They do not constitute legal, tax or professional advice, or a solicitation of services. Case references are drawn from publicly available orders as of October 2026 and may be subject to appeal or modification.
-----------------------------------------------
References;
1. IBBI, 10 Years of IBC (2026). Figures as of March 2026.
2. IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026 (No. 6 of 2026); MCA notification S.O. 2625(E) dated 22 May 2026.
3. Section 31(1), first and second provisos; Section 30(2)(d) as substituted; Section 67B(3). See Annexure A.
4. GMT Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. Hastimal Kachhara (NCLT Mumbai, 22 March 2024) (Steamline Industries).Full citations of all decisions referred to in this note are in Annexure B.
5. Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (SC, 15 November 2019); Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (SC, 13 April 2021).
6. Section 32A was upheld in Manish Kumar v. Union of India (SC, 19 January 2021).
7. Vaibhav Goel v. DCIT (SC, 20 March 2025), paras 12-14.
8. AMNS Khopoli Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom HC, 23 April 2024); Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom HC, 28 August 2024); Uttam Value Steels Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom HC, 28 August 2024); AMNS Gandhidham Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom HC, 17 October 2025); Swan Defence and Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom HC, 5 August 2025); The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (Del HC, 24 June 2024).
9. UltraTech Cement Ltd. v. Union of India (Cal HC, 18 September 2026).
10. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST (Bom HC, 16 October 2025).
11. Aarem Insights Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals)-VII (Bom HC, 7 September 2026).
12. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Del HC, 2 September 2026).
13. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Del HC, ad-interim order, 8 April 2024).
14. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Akums Lifesciences Ltd. (NCLAT, 25 February 2025); Pinax Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (Cal HC, 24 June 2026).
15. DCIT v. IndusInd General Insurance Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai, 3 August 2026); a tribunal-level ruling closely tied to the wording of that plan.
16. E. Bansal and N. Yadav, “From Resolution to Reversal: Lessons from Bhushan Power & Steel on State Agencies, Procedural Lapses, and Judicial Review under the IBC”, in IBBI, Shaping the Next Decade of IBC: The Road Ahead (2026), p. 478.
17. In AMNS Khopoli (supra), the plan barred proceedings for any period before its Effective Date of 10 November 2022, and the Court relied on that clause. In AMNS Gandhidham (supra), the Court measured the cut-off from the implementation date.
18. Notification No. 11/2020-Central Tax, 21 March 2020; CBIC Circular No. 134/04/2020-GST, 23 March 2020.
19. Venus Infra Projects v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Mad HC, 9 July 2026). The case did not arise from a CIRP.
20. Zigma Machinery & Equipment Solutions v. Assistant Commissioner (Mad HC, 25 August 2026). The case did not arise from a CIRP.
21. Notification No. 11/2020-Central Tax and Circular No. 134/04/2020-GST (supra).
22. Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja (SC, 29 January 2025, majority view).
23. Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (SC, 26 September 2025), para 126.
24. Commissioner v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (SC, 24 April 2018).
25. Finance Act, 2023.
26. Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom HC, 29 August 2008).
27. JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai, 31 December 2025), recording the NCLAT's order; see also AMNS Gandhidham (supra).
28. Orchid Pharma Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Chennai, 11 May 2026).
29. IBBI Circular No. IBBI/CIRP/83/2025, 17 March 2025.
30. Section 80 read with Section 139(3), Income-tax Act, 1961.
31. Explanation 1, clause (iih)(B), to Section 115JB(2).
32. JSW Steel Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (ITAT Mumbai, 16 March 2022), following the Tribunal's order for AY 2004-05 in ITA No. 923/Bang/2009.
33. GMT Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. Hastimal Kachhara (NCLT Mumbai, 22 March 2024) (Steamline Industries).
34. DCIT v. Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi, 24 December 2025).
35. Reserve Bank of India (Asset Reconstruction Companies) Directions, 2025 (RBI/DoR/2025-26/374; DoR.FIN.REC.No.293/26.03.001/2025-26 dated 28 November 2025, updated as on 10 March 2026), Chapter II, para 18.
36. Kartikeya V. Sarabhai v. CIT (SC, 4 September 1997).
37. Section 30(2)(b); regulation 38(1)(b), CIRP Regulations. The extent of a dissenting secured creditor's entitlement was referred to a larger bench in DBS Bank Ltd. Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (SC, 3 January 2024).
38. IFCI Ltd. v. Sutanu Sinha (SC, 9 November 2023).
39. B. Nirmal Kumar v. LIC HFL Trustee Co. Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT Chennai, 10 November 2025) (in personal guarantor proceedings).
40. Kalyani Transco (supra), paras 144-152.
41. SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, regulation 10(1)(da); Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, rule 19A.
42. Consortium of Karishma Jain & Ors. (SRA of XL Energy Ltd.) v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NCLT Hyderabad, 2 May 2025); Supreme Court order dated 28 July 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 9667 of 2025.
43. MCA General Circular No. 08/2020, 6 March 2020.
44. MCA General Circular No. 01/2026, 24 February 2026 (Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026).
45. Ram Ratan Kanoongo v. Pramod Goenka (NCLT Mumbai, 3 September 2024), para 24.
46. Indian Bank v. State Bank of India (NCLAT, 8 April 2026), paras 66-67 and 72.
47. Kalyani Transco (supra), paras 82-85, 99-102 and 186-189.
48. Section 30(2)(d) as substituted with effect from 26 May 2026. IBBI had earlier consulted on monitoring committees through a discussion paper dated 19 November 2024.
----------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment