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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17355/2025HC DelhiDLHC01089540202514 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, setting aside the order dated March 26, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2021-22. The Court held that the Commissioner's reliance on the pending SLP in CIT v. Sheraton International Inc. was misplaced, especially since the petitioner submitted that the SLP had been closed due to low tax effect. The Court noted that the issue was covered by several judgments, including this Court's decisions in the assessee's own case (Commissioner of Income Tax – International Taxation-3 v. Shangri-LA International Hotel Management Pte Ltd.) and other related cases. The Court directed that the application filed by the petitioner on April 28, 2023, be allowed and the Commissioner (Appeals) was to take consequential action in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that a revisionary authority cannot deny relief based on a pending appeal if the underlying issue is settled by High Court precedents and the appeal itself has been closed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shangri-La International Hotel Management Pte. Ltd., filed a writ petition 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 an application on April 28, 2023, seeking revision of an intimation/order dated April 28, 2022, issued under Section 143(1) for assessment year 2021-22. The Commissioner accepted the maintainability of the revision petition but denied relief, citing the pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court concerning the case of CIT v. Sheraton International Inc. The petitioner argued that the SLP was closed due to low tax effect and that the issue was covered by various High Court decisions, including in its own case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income-Tax erred in denying relief under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the decision in CIT v. Sheraton International Inc. was pending consideration before the Supreme Court, when the SLP had been closed. Assessee's Contentions: - The Commissioner wrongly denied relief by relying on a pending SLP which had subsequently been closed due to low tax effect. - The issue is covered by this Court's decisions in Vijay Gupta v. CIT and EPCOS Electronic Components S.A. v. Union of India, and more importantly, by decisions in the assessee's own case, specifically Commissioner of Income Tax – International Taxation-3 v. Shangri-LA International Hotel Management Pte Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned Standing Counsel was unable to confirm the submission regarding the closure of the SLP.

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

W.P.(C) 17355/2025 Page 1 of 3 $~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 14.11.2025 + W.P.(C) 17355/2025 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. 71407/2025 (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- tax Act, 1961 with a direction to allow the Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:24.11.2025 14:33:37 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 17355/2025 Page 2 of 3 application dated 28.04.2023 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 28.04.2023 for revising the intimation/order dated 28.04.2022. The said order dated 28.04.2022 was issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2021-22. The submission is that though respondent no. 1 has 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 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) 17355/2025 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 that 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 2021-22 is set aside. The application filed on 28.04.2023 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 →