SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3 DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17353/2025HC DelhiDLHC01089538202514 November 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated March 26, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax)-3 under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2022-23. The Court held that the Commissioner's reasoning for denying relief was misplaced, particularly in light of the closure of the SLP in CIT v. Sheraton International Inc. due to low tax effect. The Court noted that the issue was covered by its own previous judgments, including CIT v. Sheraton International Inc., CIT v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., and its own case, Commissioner of Income Tax – International Taxation-3 v. Shangri-LA International Hotel Management Pte Ltd. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner on November 6, 2023, was allowed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to take consequential action in accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shangri-La International Hotel Management Pte. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated March 26, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax)-3, Delhi, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had filed a revision application on November 6, 2023, seeking revision of an intimation/order dated November 7, 2022, issued under Section 143(1) for assessment year 2022-23. The Commissioner accepted the maintainability of the revision petition but denied relief, citing a pending Supreme Court case (CIT v. Sheraton International Inc.). The petitioner argued this was misplaced as the SLP had been closed due to low tax effect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax)-3 erred in denying relief under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground of a pending Supreme Court case, when the said case was subsequently closed due to low tax effect? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Commissioner's reliance on the pending Supreme Court case (CIT v. Sheraton International Inc.) was misplaced, especially since the Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court had been closed on the ground of low tax effect. The petitioner also relied on this Court's decisions in Vijay Gupta v. CIT and EPCOS Electronic Components S.A. v. Union of India, which held revision petitions under Section 264 to be maintainable. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel was unable to confirm the petitioner's submission regarding the closure of the SLP. However, the judgment notes that the issue was concededly covered by the decision in CIT v. Sheraton International Inc.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 143(1),Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 17353/2025
W.P.(C) 17355/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

W.P.(C) 17353/2025 Page 1 of 3 $~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 14.11.2025 + W.P.(C) 17353/2025 CM APPL. 71403/2025 SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Mr. Devvrat Tiwari and Mr. Drona Negi, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3 DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 71403/2025 (Exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 17355/2025 3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), directions(s) quashing the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure P-1) under s. 264 of the Income- Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:24.11.2025 14:33:37 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17353/2025 Page 2 of 3 tax Act, 1961 with a direction to allow the application dated 06.11.2023 filed by the Petitioner and to issue further directions for grant of refund along with interest under s. 244A of the Act; and/ or” 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily that the petitioner had filed an application on 06.11.2023 for revising the intimation/order dated 07.11.2022. The said order dated 07.11.2022 was issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2022-23. The submission is that though respondent no. 1 had accepted that the revision petition under Section 264 of the Act is maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in Vijay Gupta v. CIT [2016] 68 Taxmann.com 131 and EPCOS Electronic Components S.A. v. Union of India, [2019] 107 taxmann.com 227 (Delhi), but denied the relief on the ground that CIT v. Sheraton International Inc. (2009) 178 Taxmann 84 (Del) is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. 5. Thus, the conclusion rendered by respondent no. 1 not giving the benefit of the order passed by this Court in the petitioner’s own case, on the argument that Sheraton International Inc. (supra) is pending consideration before the Supreme Court, which according to the counsel, is clearly misplaced. In any case, it is his submission that the SLP before the Supreme Court has been closed on the ground of low tax effect. 6. Though, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha is unable to confirm this particular submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, we by taking the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner on record, as concededly the issue stands covered by the judgment in Sheraton International Inc. (supra), CIT v. Sheraton International Inc. [decided by this court on Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:24.11.2025 14:33:37 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17353/2025 Page 3 of 3 11.05.2023 in ITA 271/2023] and CIT v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., 2022:DHC:004730 and also the Commissioner of Income Tax – International Taxation-3 v. Shangri-LA International Hotel Management Pte Ltd., ITAs 532/2023 & 535/2023 decided on 18.09.2023, hold the result in this petition shall also be the same as was decided by this Court in the assessee’s own case and accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 26.03.2025 passed under Section 264 of the Act for the assessment year 2022-23 is set aside. The application filed on 06.11.2023 is allowed. The CIT (Appeals) shall take consequential action, in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J NOVEMBER 14, 2025/sr Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:24.11.2025 14:33:37 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →