In IBC lit - you'll be primarily dealing with NCLT as a forum where you help a CD or an OD to take an application and then take any objections (if minority>10%) to them and then appeals as applicable.

In restructuring, its more of M&A - it can be thru means of insolvency or it can be via demerger or merger - that sort of thing. Again, NCLT is involved, but less so other than to make sure shareholder interests beyond promoters is protected.

Essentially, IBC lit is not that widespread to make it a long term sustainable practice unless clubbed with other areas, whereas IRPs dedicate their lives to stuff like this.

M&A restructuring is heavily in demand at all times

This is my own opinion, may not be fully correct. I welcome an actual practicioner to correct errors

An insolvency process, especially of a large company, is a complicated thing. The resolution professional once he steps in needs advice on lots of aspects, from collating claims to evaluating resolution plans to dealing with government authorities. A lot of this doesn't require litigation. Similarly, creditors also need non-litigation advice, on whether a plan is good or bad for them or whether what the RP is saying is correct or not. Resolution applicants need help in drafting resolution plans etc. A team which is purely a restructuring/insolvency team would usually render advice to these types of persons during an insolvency process. A pure restructuring team would also help a company or creditors in debt restructuring outside of insolvency. On the other hand, an IBC litigation team would be focused on the NCLT/NCLAT/SC leg of things, representing people before courts. Ofc there is a lot of placed where both these functions are closely inter-linked. So a restructuring team may assist a lit team, or even go to court themselves.