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 366,339 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

Muthu Thevar Nagarajan, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1., Dindigul

Appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2083/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2883 & 2884/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Income Tax, 47, Psk Nagar, Corporate Circle, Rajapalayam 626 108. Madurai [Pan Aaacr 5284J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Muralidhar & Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.As. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S. Muralidhar and Shri JFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA Nos.2883 & 2884/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Income Tax, 47, PSK Nagar, Corporate Circle, Rajapalayam 626 108. Madurai [PAN AAACR 5284J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri…

M/S Ayodhya Development Authority (Formely Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority), Lucknow vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 145/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…to be appealed against. For this proposition, it placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemlata Gargya vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 1 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC), in which their Lordships had held that an order refusing special leave to appeal did not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. It was submitted that the mere dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Jammu Development Authority could…

M/S Ayodhya Development Authority(Formerly Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority), Ayodhya vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 143/LKW/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

…ht to be appealed against. For this proposition, it placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemlata Gargya vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 1 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC), in which their Lordships had held that an order refusing special leave to appeal did not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. It was submitted that the mere dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Jammu Development Authority could not…

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

M/S Jsw Infrastruture Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6015/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Jsw Infrastructure Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(2)(1), Jsw Centre Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Bandra (East), Vs. Road, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcj 6721 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: 02/01/2025

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…gment till date. Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in eme Court in Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church 2000) 6 SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church 2000) 6 SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras of South India Trust Asso ciation CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by…

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik Commissionerate

The appeals are partly allowed;

C.A. No.-005642-005642 - 2009Supreme Court20 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 4(3)

…Petroleum Corporation Ltd1 with the order of this Court summarily dismissing the appeal. In support of his contention based on the merger, he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.7. 7 (2000) 6 SCC 359 Civil Appeal No.5642 of 2009 etc. Page 13 of 31 19. He submitted that the sale price based on IPP when the petroleum products are sold to OMC should be taken as transaction value, especially when the transaction is on a principal-to-principal basis at arm’s length. In his submission, this would show that the price is the sole consi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Devine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3068/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…ts in support of his contention in this ground of appeal, which are given below: "1.CIT Vs Stellar Investments reported in 192 ITR 287 (Delhi) DCIT Vs Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 (Guj) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78) (SC) Metachem 245 ITR 360 (MPHC) Nem Chand Kothari 264 ITR 254 (Gau) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. I.T.A.C. LTD. (ITA 1194/2007) Rajokri Farms Pvt Ltd (ITA 1410/2008); Diamond Products 177 Taxman 331 Lab Chand Bohar vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 HC (Raj). Aravali Trading Co vs ITO 220 CTR 622 HC (Raj); Commissioner of Income-tax-1 vs. Micro Melt (P.) Ltd. 177 Taxman 35 HC (Guj)".…

Mstc Ltd, Kolkata vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 MSTC Ltd., Jurisdictional Assessing Plot No. CF-18/2, Street No. Officer, Circle 1(1), Kolkata, 175, AA-1C, New Town, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata, - 700156 Chowringhee Square, (PAN: AACCM0021E) Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, AR Respondent by : Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: T…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Paswara Electronics Pvt. Ltd

ITA/96/2019HC Delhi26 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

…Supreme Court, and thereafter sought to be reviewed and further being the subject matter of a Curative Petition, no further 4 (2002) 8 SCC 361 5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1004 6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1609 7 (2000) 6 SCC 359 8 2014 SCC OnLine All 12956 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.12.2025 17:13:57 Signature Not Verified LPA 891/2011 & connected matters Page 9 of 27 determination on these issues is necessitated and the same stand concluded. 15. Learned couns…

Miranda Tools Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1599/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…is Court has been 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 vs. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association [1992] 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 (Delhi).” 7. Furth…

Miranda Tools Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1598/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edel Finance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed, and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 3025/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 94(7)

…his Court has been 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 v. State of Kerala [2000] 113 Taxman 470/245 ITR 360 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association [1992] 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in IL & FS Energy Development Co. Ltd. (supra) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 118/234 Taxman 761/378 ITR 33 (Delhi). 10. Accordin…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shilp Gravures Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 798/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 8Section 80I

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “DIVISION BENCH-A” AHMEDABAD Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Shilp Gravures Limited, Commissioner of 101, Kashi Parekh Income Tax, v. Complex, B.H. Bhagwati Circle-4(1)(1), Chambers C.G. Road, A Wing, Room No. Navrangpura, A-410, 4th Floor Ahmedabad-380009, Pratyakash Kar Gujarat Bhawan, Pankrapole, PAN: AADCS0868G Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- (Respondent) 380015, Gujarat. (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.DR Assessee by: Shri S N Divatia, Advocate Date of hearing : 31…

M/S Longview Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 130/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

…has been 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 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, (…

DCIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Jindal Itf Limited, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed

ITA 1776/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 1776/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dcit Vs. M/S. Jindal Itf Limited Central Circle – 28 28, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110 015 Pan: Aabcj 9263 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

…has been 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, DCIT vs. Jindal ITF Ltd. Asst.Year :2012-13 Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest…

ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Vishnu Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

ITA 50/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 131Section 14ASection 68

Radisson Hotels International Incorporated, Usa vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2382/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Deepika PasrichaFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

…has been 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 SCC 1, the present appeal is covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in Sheraton International Inc. (supra). 7. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal…

Modi Entertainment Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

ITA 3051/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 4

…onsideration of the earlier decisions. Ld. Principal CIT(DR) has also relied on following decisions :- - CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Limited, 313 ITR 137 - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, 167 ITR 897 - Kunhayammed & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anr. 245 ITR 360 Ld. Principal CIT(DR) has submitted following written submissions in this regard:- 15 Modi Entertainment Ltd. "The assessee had filed a compilation of case laws on 20/04/2017 and the Deptt. had to reply to the above. The reply of the Deptt. is as follows :- 1. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna V/s St…

Sheela Ashok Bafna, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 68

…of the Hon'ble High Court has to be seen if similar facts are permeating in the present appeal also and if there is difference on facts, then the judgment cannot be applied. In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunhayyammed vs State of Kerala reported in 245 ITR 360 and also in CIT vs. Rashtradoot (HUF) reported in 412 ITR 17, the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that if the High Court has not admitted the question of law, and has dismissed the appeal, then it is a case of dismissal in liminie. Even on merits and facts, the judgment of Udit Kalra vs ITO (supra) is distinguishable as in that case the company was…