Introduction
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT'), Delhi Bench, recently rendered a significant decision in the case of* DCIT v. Rapid Buildwell Ltd.[i].* The Revenue filed an appeal against the order dated 16.08.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’) pertaining to the assessment year (‘AY’) 2010-11. The crux of the matter revolves around the Assessing Officer’s (‘AO’) disallowance of claimed expenses and depreciation, which the CIT(A) subsequently deleted.
Brief Facts
Rapid Buildwell Ltd., engaged in the business of renting and maintenance of immovable properties, filed its return of income for AY 2010-11, declaring a loss of Rs. 4,65,09,758. The AO initially accepted the returned loss and completed the assessment. However, upon subsequent scrutiny, the AO noticed an alleged erroneous allowance of unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,28,61,126.
Consequently, the AO reopened the case, leading to an order that reduced the loss to nil by disallowing both the claimed depreciation and business loss of Rs. 1,36,48,632. The AO contended that the business was not set up during the relevant year 2009-10 and that the assets were not utilized for business purposes during the relevant AY. Hence, the claimed expenses and depreciation were not allowable as per the Income-tax Act, 1961(‘the Act’).
On appeal, the CIT(A) overturned the AO’s decision, holding in favour of the assessee. However, dissatisfied with the CIT(A)’s order, the Revenue then approached the ITAT challenging the CIT(A)’s order, leading to the current proceedings.
Held
At the outset of the hearing, the ITAT was apprised that Rapid Buildwell Ltd. had been admitted to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) on 21.11.2022 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’) and that the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) had granted a moratorium against the institution of proceedings against the corporate debtor (‘CD’), as per s. 14 of the Code.
S. 14 of the Code, among other things, prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits against the CD during the moratorium period. Upon considering this crucial aspect, the ITAT dismissed the appeal without delving into the merits of the case.
Conclusion
The ITAT’s decision aligns with the principles of the Code, which aims to provide a breathing space to financially distressed companies undergoing the resolution process. The moratorium, granted by the NCLT, encompasses a prohibition on legal proceedings, including tax-related appeals.
This decision underscores the crucial interplay between tax and insolvency proceedings. The moratorium serves as a shield, preventing unwarranted legal actions during the resolution process and allowing the CD and the Resolution Professional to focus on the revival or orderly liquidation of the company.
In light of the NCLT’s grant of moratorium, the ITAT exercised prudence in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. This decision reinforces the legal protection afforded to companies undergoing insolvency proceedings, emphasizing the need for a harmonious approach between tax laws and insolvency regulations. As the CD progresses through the CIRP, the Revenue retains the option to pursue the appeal post-resolution, adhering to the relevant provisions of the Act.
End Note:
[i] DCIT v. Rapid Buildwell Ltd., ITA No. 6905/Del/2018, 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 106
Authored by Nitish Solanki, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.