THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(2)(2),
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 263 initiated and completed in the name of the amalgamating company (Lands End Properties Pvt. Ltd.) were invalid in law. The order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 was quashed.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 263 against Lands End Properties Pvt. Ltd. However, this company had already amalgamated with Indian Hotels Company Ltd. much before the proceedings were initiated. The amalgamation was approved by the Bombay High Court prior to the Section 263 proceedings.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of Section 263 proceedings initiated against an amalgamated company after its amalgamation was approved by the High Court.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
In this case reference was made by the Hon'ble President as per order dated 4th July, 2023 on the draft question that whether in the particular facts and circumstances of the case, the initiation and completion of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the name of the Lands End Properties Pvt. Ltd can be said to be valid considering the fact that it is amalgamation with Indian Hotels Company Pvt. Ltd., was approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court much prior to the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act.
The learned Third Member concurred with view taken by the learned Judicial Member that the impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in the name of amalgamating company despite specific intimation is invalid in law and deserves to be quashed.
In view of the above decision of the learned Third Member, the impugned order passed under Section 263 of the Act dated 29th March, 2017 is quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of ground no.2 decided by the Third Member.
As the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act is quashed all other grounds in the appeal are academic in nature.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.11.2023.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026