How many judgments cite Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala?

361 judgments on BharatTax cite Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (245 ITR 360), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 144B, Section 148A, Section 151A, Section 250.

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

245 ITR 360Supreme Court of India2000#209 most cited

What is Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala authority for?

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

361

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala · doctrine of merger · special leave to appeal · refusal of SLP · speaking order · non-speaking order · section 136 · order substitution · Supreme Court · appellate order effect

Also reported as

113 Taxmann 470

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 147 Section 144B Section 148A Section 151A Section 250 Section 143(3)Section 136

Issues it is cited on

doctrine of merger section 114(e)section 136 section 43(3)section 193 section 196 sanction under section 151 non-speaking order section 151a section 144a section 114 section 151(2)

Judgments citing Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

Sudha, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2360/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2360/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sudha, The Ito, 4-254, Panchayat Street, Ward-4, Avaraikulam, Tirunelveli. Radhapuram, Tirunelveli-627 133. [Pan: Gbtps 0255 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…rt in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 Sudha :: 6 :: ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by th…

Sri Ramalingam Radha, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circl-I, Erode

ITA 2342/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Ramalingam Radha, Oa-13, Kumaresapuram, 7Th Street, Rajiv Nagar, Tiruchengode, Namakkal-637 211. [Pan: Accpr 2234 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Acit, Circle-1, Erode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.R. Venkata Raman, Fca : Mr.Krishna Murthy At, Jcit : 22.10.2025 : 27.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.06.2025 For Ay 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal, On The Ground That The Assessee Did Not Respond To Three Notices Issued. 2. Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Tax (Appeals) Ought Not To Have Relied On A Few Decisions Rendered Under Other Acts & On A Few Under The Income Tax Act, None Of Which Apply To The Facts Of The Assessee'S Case. :: 2 ::

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

Pichaimani Gunasundari, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Nc-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2333/CHNY/2025[2019-20 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2333/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Pichaimani Gunasundari, The Ito, No.65, Saratha Flats, Non-Corporate Ward-22(1), Ganapathi Nagar, Tambaram. 4Th Street, Urapakkam, Kancheepuram-603 210. [Pan: Cqgpg 6518 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

…chnologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 Pichaimani Gunasundari :: 7 :: ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by th…

Swaty Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2551/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

…4/Mum/2015. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. – [2002] 256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra) relates to warrant of authorization issued under Section 132 of the Act for carrying of search by the Income-tax Department and whether th…

Sonia Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2549/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 153D

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

…stitution of India. Consequently, it has no binding precedent value, in contradiction with a reasoned order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or an order passed in appeal. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kunhayammed 245 ITR 360 and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. 104 taxmann.com 25 (SC)]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Orissa and Another v. Dhirendra Sundar Das And Others – [(2019) 6 SCC 270 (SC)] has clarified this position with the following observations at Para 9.27: “9.27 It is a well settled principle of law emerging from a catena of decisions of this…

Annai Kanthammal Ramachandran Educational and Charitable Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1987/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

…mbay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 1 vs. M/S Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed being covered

ITA/511/2025HC Delhi10 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14Section 14ASection 260A

…en challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date. Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:15.10.2025 12:58:54 Signature Not Verified ITA 511/2025 Page 12 of 12 SCC 1, the…

Rajendraa Sakunthala, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Ncc-2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1624/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sudharshan, Advocate for Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50C

…ombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by t…

Viswanathan Pappathi, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1620/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Viswanathan Pappathi Income Tax Officer No. 24C, Pudupet Road, Vs. Ward – 2, 4Th Street, Tirupattur, Vellore. Vellore – 635 601. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ceqpp-4595-H] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T.

For Appellant: Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…chnologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. :-7-: ITA. No:1620/Chny/2025 17. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by t…

M/S. Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion Organisation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion C.I.T. (Exemptions), Organization, Vs. Chennai. 6-A/B/C, Mount Poonamallee Road, Nandambakkam-600089 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aabct 6725 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 2(15)Section 25Section 8

…Leave has been granted. 6. Admittedly, there is no stay of the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench, Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala And Another [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1 the present appeals and pending applications are dismissing being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in WP(C) 1872/2013." The Department had further appealed to the Supr…

Thangamuthu Balakrishnan, Tiruppur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 719/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A '(For Respondent: Mr. C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

…e Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by t…

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6159/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

…titution of India. Consequently, it has no binding precedent value, in contradiction with a reasoned order of theHon’ble Supreme Court or an order passed in appeal. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kunhayammed 245 ITR 360 and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. 104 taxmann.com 25 (SC)].The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Orissa and Another v. Dhirendra Sundar Das And Others – [(2019) 6 SCC 270 (SC)] has clarified this position with the following observations at Para 9.27: “9.27 It is a well settled principle of law emerging from a catena of decisions of this…

Chinnappan Peter Francis, Kumbakonam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1484/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Chinnappan Peter Ito, Francis, Vs. Ward I, No. 113, Kamraj Road, Kumbakonam. Bishops House, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Bwspp-2816-G] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 : 09.09.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 17.04.2025, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Against The Order U/S.147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Ito (Assessing Officer), Ward I, Thanjavur Dated 30.01.2024. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar For The Assessee Mr.Y.Sridhar, Advocate For The Assessee Has Raised An Additional Ground Relating To Jurisdiction Of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘Jao’) In The Light Of The Cbdt Notification Dated 29.03.2022 & The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of Tvs Credit Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit (W.P.No.22402 Of 2024 Dated 24.06.2025). The Ld.Dr, Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl.Cit, Objected Admission Of Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee.

For Respondent: Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

…Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Pawan Cargo Forwards Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms above and cross objection filed by the assessee become infructuous in terms of our above order

ITA 3116/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3116/Chny/2024 (िनधा&रणवष& / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pawan Cargo Forwards Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Vs. 518, Mkn Road, Pawan Imperia, Circle-1(Ltu) Alandur Mkn Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaccp 2477P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 26.06.2025

Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…mbay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by…

Gaurav Logistics, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-4(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1111/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Logistics, Income Tax Officer 32, Gaurav Vara, New Avadi Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai 600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffg-1902-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Dated 14.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed A Memorandum Of Addition Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of Gaurav Logistics

For Appellant: Shri Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 250

…ombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarized the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by th…

Kandasamy Selvaraj, Thothukudi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 1852/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1852/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Kandasamy Selvaraj, The Dcit, 66A-20, Ambal Nagar, Central Circle-1, Madurai Main Road, Madurai-2. Vilathikulam-628 907. Thoothukudi District. [Pan: Baips 2224 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Balasubramanian, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…e Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Kandasamy Selvaraj :: 6 :: 13. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by th…

Chellappan Sankaranathan, Sivaganga vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 930/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.930/2025 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Mr.N.V. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

…Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarized the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by th…

Riaz Ali, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 790/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Riaz Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.2-A, Puliyangudi North (International Taxation)-2(1), Street, Koothanallur, Tiruvarur, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-614 101. [Pan:Auepr2020H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025, Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Intl Taxn Ward 2(1) Che, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.147 R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Dated 26.12.2024. 2 Ita No.790/Chny/2025 (Ay 2018-19) Riaz Ali

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT

Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

Pandyan Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 945/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.945/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Pandyan Automobiles Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.48 Bye Pass Road, Madurai, Corporate Circle, Tamil Nadu-625 016. Madurai. [Pan: Aadcp5203C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 : घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

…nologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pandyan Automobiles Pvt Ltd :: 6 :: 11. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 (SC) has summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:- "Where an appeal or revision is provided before a superior forum against an order passed by a Court, Tribunal or any other authority and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges with the decision by th…