Spice Infotainment v. Commissioner of Income

18 SCC 353Reported decision2020#9016 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act Section 143(2)Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 292B 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)section 292b unabsorbed depreciation amalgamation interest u/s 234b section 292 section 29 dispute resolution panel section 234b

Judgments citing Spice Infotainment v. Commissioner of Income

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

…Realtors Private Ltd. have been rendered by a bench comprising two judges. What is pertinent, is that in Maruti 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 Serv…

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

…Realtors Private Ltd. have been rendered by a bench comprising two judges. What is pertinent, is that in Maruti 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 Servic…

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

…Realtors Private Ltd. have been rendered by a bench comprising two judges. What is pertinent, is that in Maruti 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 Servic…

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

…ntibhai Patel v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 4812]; and (iii) Alamelu Veerappan [Alamelu Veerappan v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13593]. 31. There is no conflict between the decisions of this Court in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] (dated 2-11- 2017) and in Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] (dated 6-4-2018).‖ 18. Arguments flowing on lines similar to those which were addressed before us in this batch appear to have been urged before the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki with it being argued that a notice in the name of a…

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

…Realtors Private Ltd. have been rendered by a bench comprising two judges. What is pertinent, is that in Maruti 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 Servic…

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

…Realtors Private Ltd. have been rendered by a bench comprising two judges. What is pertinent, is that in Maruti 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 Servic…

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

…Realtors Private Ltd. have been rendered by a bench comprising two judges. What is pertinent, is that in Maruti 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 Servic…

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

…aspect of an assessment coming to be framed in the name of a company which stood dissolved consequent to amalgamation appears to have arisen for consideration of this Court yet again in Sky Light 18 (2020) 18 SCC 353 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.09.2024 19:44:08 Signature Not Verified ITA 116/2023 & other connected matters Page 23 of 52 Hospitality LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax19. The Sky Light Hospitality Court held that a defect in recording the name of a non-existent company w…

MADHAV INFRA PROJECTS LTD (ERSTWHILE AASHKA CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 88/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Madhav Infra Projects Ltd., Dcit, (Erstwhile Aashka Circle-1(1)(1), Constructions Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad 4, Madhav House, Nr. Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Baroda, Gujarat Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024/26.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 23.12.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming Action Of Ao Passing An Ex- Parte Order On An Entity That Ceased To Exist Pursuant To Order Of Amalgamation Passed By Hon'Ble High Court. The Order Passed On Non-Entity Is A Nullity & Void Ab Initio That Ought To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ty ceases to exist and all actions against a non-existent entity therefore were null and void. He dealt with the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Maruti Suzuki(supra) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., reported in (2020) 18 SCC 353, Delhi High Court confirmed by the Hon’ble apex court. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that a very important fact in those decisions was that the AO had been informed about the fact of the assessee not being in existence on account of having amalgamated into another entity and despite so he had initiated proceedings/ passed order against a non-existent entit…

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)

…Realtors Private Ltd. have been rendered by a bench comprising two judges. What is pertinent, is that in Maruti 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. 13 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 S…

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

…ors (P.) Ltd. (supra) have been rendered by a bench comprising 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)…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-002716-002716 - 2022Supreme Court05 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276C

…er of Income Tax, Circle 1, Trichy15 the amalgamated (transferee) company filed a revised return, beyond the time prescribed. The original return had been filed by the transferor company. This was not allowed by the revenue. The assessee moved 14 (2020) 18 SCC 353 15 (2020) 14 SCC 736 18 the High Court. This court endorsed the view of the single judge, holding that the revenue had not objected to the amalgamation schemes duly and that Sections 139(5) and 119(2)(b) of the Act and Circular No. 9/2015 issued by the CBDT were inapplicable to a case where a revised ROI was filed pursuant to a Schem…