How many judgments cite Hospitality LLP v. CIT?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite Hospitality LLP v. CIT (13 SCC 147), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Hospitality LLP v. CIT

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Hospitality LLP v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 292B, Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.

13 SCC 147High Court2018#8170 most cited

What is Hospitality LLP v. CIT authority for?

An assessment framed in the name of an amalgamated and dissolved company is a procedural defect that can be cured, not a nullity.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT · assessment in name of dissolved company · amalgamated company · procedural defect · Section 292B · null and void assessment · Section 143(2) · Section 143(3)

Also reported as

2018 SCC OnLine DEL 7155

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 292B Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act Section 292B of the Income Tax Act Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 2(1a)transferor company transferee company section 153a(1)(b)unabsorbed depreciation section 292b amalgamation interest u/s 234b section 292 section 29 dispute resolution panel section 144c

Judgments citing Hospitality LLP v. CIT

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 vs. John Wiley and Sons, Inc

ITA/554/2023HC Delhi19 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 154Section 292

…Officer [“AO”] in not mentioning the name of the entity correctly is a curable mistake under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] specifically rectifiable in light of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT [(2018) 13 SCC 147]?” 4. The aforesaid question has been decided by the Division Bench by holding thus: “17. In our consider opinion, the power conferred by Section 154 would stand restricted to an inadvertent or unintentional error. The appellant has woefully failed to establish that the order of assessment as originally framed was intended to be in respe…

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 vs. John Wiley and Sons Inc

ITA/539/2023HC Delhi19 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 154Section 292

Btl Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7430/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

…Suzuki, the Supreme Court considered the earlier judgments rendered by it in the matter of Spice Infotainment vs. Commissioner of Income tax (2020) 18 SCC 353] and Skylight Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-28(1), New Delhi (2018) 13 SCC 147 (Delhi), which dealt with the issue at hand. 20.1 In Maruti Suzuki, the Supreme Court made the following observations with regard to the aforementioned judgements: "21. In Spice Entertainment [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43], a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with the…

Btl Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3619/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम Btl Industries Ltd., Dcit, (Merged With & Now Known As Vs. Central Circle-Ii, M/S Btl Holding Co. Ltd.), Faridabad, C/O Srs Mall, Third Floor, Haryana. Sector-12, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No.Aaccb0573C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent &

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

…Suzuki, the Supreme Court considered the earlier judgments rendered by it in the matter of Spice Infotainment vs. Commissioner of Income tax (2020) 18 SCC 353] and Skylight Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-28(1), New Delhi (2018) 13 SCC 147 (Delhi), which dealt with the issue at hand. 20.1 In Maruti Suzuki, the Supreme Court made the following observations with regard to the aforementioned judgements: “21. In Spice Entertainment [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] , a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with the q…

Ester Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3618/DEL/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2025

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

…Suzuki, the Supreme Court considered the earlier judgments rendered by it in the matter of Spice Infotainment vs. Commissioner of Income tax (2020) 18 SCC 353] and Skylight Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-28(1), New Delhi (2018) 13 SCC 147 (Delhi), which dealt with the issue at hand. 20.1 In Maruti Suzuki, the Supreme Court made the following observations with regard to the aforementioned judgements: “21. In Spice Entertainment [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] , a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with the q…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi vs. Vedanta Ltd

ITA/88/2022HC Delhi17 Jan 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 92Section 92C

…1 Tribunal Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:17.01.2025 14:42:31 Signature Not Verified ITA 88/2022 Page 2 of 17 Supreme Court in case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT [(2018) 13 SCC 147]?‖ 2. The question of law as set out above however came to be rectified in terms of our order dated 13 September 2024 by way of which the expression ―as well as Assessing Officer‖ came to be deleted. 3. The undisputed facts which emerge from the record are as follows. The respondent-assessee, M/s Vedanta Limited2 is the resultant entity w…

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3620/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

…Suzuki, the Supreme Court considered the earlier judgments rendered by it in the matter of Spice Infotainment vs. Commissioner of Income tax (2020) 18 SCC 353] and Skylight Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-28(1), New Delhi (2018) 13 SCC 147 (Delhi), which dealt with the issue at hand. 20.1 In Maruti Suzuki, the Supreme Court made the following observations with regard to the aforementioned judgements: “21. In Spice Entertainment [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] , a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with the q…

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3619/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

…Suzuki, the Supreme Court considered the earlier judgments rendered by it in the matter of Spice Infotainment vs. Commissioner of Income tax (2020) 18 SCC 353] and Skylight Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-28(1), New Delhi (2018) 13 SCC 147 (Delhi), which dealt with the issue at hand. 20.1 In Maruti Suzuki, the Supreme Court made the following observations with regard to the aforementioned judgements: “21. In Spice Entertainment [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] , a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with the q…

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3618/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

…Suzuki, the Supreme Court considered the earlier judgments rendered by it in the matter of Spice Infotainment vs. Commissioner of Income tax (2020) 18 SCC 353] and Skylight Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-28(1), New Delhi (2018) 13 SCC 147 (Delhi), which dealt with the issue at hand. 20.1 In Maruti Suzuki, the Supreme Court made the following observations with regard to the aforementioned judgements: “21. In Spice Entertainment [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] , a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with the q…

International Hospital Limited vs. DCIT Circle 12 (2)

ITA/116/2023HC Delhi26 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

…that a contrary position emerges from the decision of the Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296] which was affirmed on 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] by a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr Justice Ashok Bhushan. In assessing the merits of the above submission, it is necessary to extract the order dated 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] of this Court : (Skylight Hospitality case[Skylight Hospitality LLP v. C…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Successor to Boeing International Corporation India Private Limited), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 828/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 139(1)

…] by a twoJudge Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr Justice Ashok Bhushan. In assessing the merits of the above submission, it is necessary to extract the order dated 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] of this Court : (Skylight Hospitality case [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] , SCC p. 147, para 1) “1. In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a 15 clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act. The special leave petition is dismiss…

S S S Glass P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee legal ground no

ITA 7614/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv

Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…g two judges. What is pertinent, is that in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court considered the earlier judgments rendered by it in the matter of CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd. [2020] 18 SCC 353 and Skylight Hospitality LLP v. Asstt. CIT [2018] 13 SCC 147, which dealt with the issue at hand. 20.1 In Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court made the following observations with regard to the aforementioned judgments: '21. In Spice Entertainment [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43], a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt w…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited

C.A. No.-005409-005409 - 2019Supreme Court25 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 92C

…non-existent company. The order of the TPO is not the subject of a challenge by the assessee before any forum. The directions of the TPO were implemented by 12 (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) 13 (2018) 13 SCC 147 10 the assessing officer in the draft assessment order in accordance with Section 144C(1) which was then challenged by the assessee before the DRP under Section 144C(2). Since the names of both the amalgamated and amalgamating companies were mentioned in the draft assessment order and final assessment order, there is no jurisdictional de…