IBC Resolution Professional Support: After Approval: What Continues
IBC Resolution Professional Support does not end at approval — a set of obligations continues afterwards. The questions below are the ones raised most often in practice; the full scope of the service is on the IBC Resolution Professional Support page.
Can the corporate debtor continue to operate as a going concern during CIRP?
Yes, and the Code's stated objective is resolution — maximising the value of the corporate debtor as a going concern — rather than immediate liquidation. Under Section 20, the RP is required to manage the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern during CIRP, subject to the CoC's directions in certain matters. Where operations continue, the RP needs ongoing cash-flow management, vendor payment prioritisation (within moratorium constraints), and management reporting — a materially different financial support requirement than a corporate debtor that has effectively stopped trading.
In practice: Going-concern operation during CIRP significantly increases the financial advisory workload — it is not just historical reconstruction and claims processing, but live cash-flow management under legal constraints most finance teams have never operated under before.
How does PNPC charge for RP support engagements — is it a fixed fee?
Fee structures vary with the engagement. For RP-direct engagements, our fee is typically structured against the scope approved by the CoC under the RP's cost proposal, and can be a fixed fee for defined workstreams (such as IM preparation or a specific forensic review) or a retainer for ongoing support across the CIRP. For creditor-side engagements — independent CoC-member advisory or claim substantiation support — the fee is agreed directly with that creditor. In every case, we provide a written scope and fee basis before work begins; we do not commence CIRP support work on an undocumented understanding given the CoC approval requirements involved.
In practice: Because RP fees themselves are subject to CoC scrutiny and, in some cases, IBBI guidance on reasonableness, we structure our own fee proposals to be transparent and easily justified when the RP presents the overall cost of the process to the CoC.
How does related-party transaction analysis differ in a forensic IBC review versus a normal statutory audit?
A statutory audit tests related-party transactions primarily for accounting disclosure compliance under Ind AS 24 and Section 188 of the Companies Act. A forensic IBC review goes further — testing whether related-party transactions in the look-back period constitute preferential transactions under Section 43(4), which applies a two-year look-back window for related parties (versus one year for unrelated parties), whether they were at fair value (undervalued transaction test under Section 45), and whether they form part of a broader pattern suggesting asset-stripping ahead of insolvency. The standard of scrutiny and the legal consequence of an adverse finding are both materially higher.
In practice: We treat every related-party transaction in the two-year look-back window as requiring individual justification, not sample-based testing — the stakes of missing a genuine avoidance transaction in this context are different from a routine audit materiality threshold.
What financial reports does the RP need to submit to the Adjudicating Authority and IBBI during CIRP?
The RP has periodic reporting obligations under the Regulations, including progress reports to the CoC, the Information Memorandum, the compliance certificate (Form H) accompanying the resolution plan submitted for approval, and various event-based filings. The IBBI also prescribes its own reporting requirements for insolvency professionals, including disclosures on the process. PNPC's role is to ensure the underlying financial data behind these reports — claims status, financial position, resolution plan analysis — is accurate and delivered to the RP in time for these filing deadlines, not to make the statutory filings ourselves, which remain the RP's direct responsibility.
In practice: We build our internal reporting calendar backward from the RP's known filing deadlines so financial deliverables are never the bottleneck holding up a statutory submission.
Does the CIRP process affect the corporate debtor's ongoing tax and GST compliance?
Yes. The corporate debtor's statutory compliance obligations — GST returns, TDS deduction and filing, income-tax obligations — generally continue during CIRP for the period the entity continues operating, though the moratorium under Section 14 protects the corporate debtor from proceedings to recover pre-CIRP dues during the moratorium period. Government dues, including tax dues, also have a specific ranking in the Section 53 waterfall and are relevant to resolution plan compliance testing under Section 30(2). Continuing compliance during CIRP itself needs active management — a lapse here creates fresh liabilities layered on top of the pre-CIRP claims already being resolved.
In practice: We treat ongoing statutory compliance during the CIRP period as a live workstream, not an afterthought — a corporate debtor that stops filing GST returns during CIRP because 'the company is in insolvency anyway' accumulates fresh interest, late fees, and potential proceedings once the moratorium lifts or a resolution plan is implemented.
How does PNPC maintain independence when supporting an RP whose fee ultimately depends on CoC approval?
Our engagement and reporting line is to the RP (or the specific creditor engaging us, where that is the structure), and our financial findings — claims admissibility, forensic transaction conclusions, resolution plan comparisons — are based on the underlying documentary evidence, not on what outcome might be more convenient for any party's fee or recovery. Where a finding is unfavourable to a resolution applicant close to the CoC, or reveals a weakness in the RP's own earlier assumptions, we report it as found. Professional independence in this context is not optional — it is what makes the work usable before the Adjudicating Authority.
In practice: An RP-support engagement where findings are shaped to please any single stakeholder is worthless the first time it is tested in an NCLT hearing or an appeal. Findings therefore need to rest on the underlying documentary evidence rather than on stakeholder convenience.
What experience does PNPC have with IBC engagements specifically, versus general corporate finance advisory?
PNPC's Corporate Finance practice includes dedicated Special Situations & Insolvency capability alongside our M&A, valuation, and due diligence teams — meaning the same firm that prepares business valuations and financial due diligence reports for healthy M&A transactions also applies that skill set to the distressed and forensic context CIRP requires. We combine practising CA fundamentals — books reconstruction, statutory compliance knowledge, financial statement analysis — with the specific procedural discipline the IBC's compressed timelines and Adjudicating Authority scrutiny demand.
In practice: We are candid with every prospective RP or CoC client about the specific nature and scale of our IBC engagement history before accepting a mandate — the personal stakes for an RP are too high for either side to be vague about capability fit at the outset.
Where this sits in the wider engagement
IBC Resolution Professional Support rarely arrives on its own. The statutory basis and the current requirements are set out on the IBC Resolution Professional Support service page, and the related services are grouped under Corporate Finance.
What PNPC does
PNPC Global has practised since 1986 across India and the UAE. On IBC Resolution Professional Support we take the work end to end — reviewing the facts, preparing and filing what is required, and dealing with the authority through to closure.