How many judgments cite Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu?

122 judgments on BharatTax cite Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu (263 ITR 658), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu come up under?

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

Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu

263 ITR 658Supreme Court of India2003#850 most cited

What is Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu authority for?

The doctrine of merger applies when appellate jurisdiction is invoked, causing the operative part of a lower court's order or decree to merge into the superior court's order, whether it reverses, modifies, or affirms the original decision. The application of this doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of statutory provisions, and the subject matter challenged.

122

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu · 263 ITR 658 · doctrine of merger · appellate order · revisional order · Supreme Court · operative part of order · mandate decree · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 250 · Income Tax Act

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 147 Section 144B Section 148A Section 151A Section 250 Section 136 Section 144

Issues it is cited on

doctrine of merger non-speaking order section 151a section 31 paper company faceless assessment section 251(2)section 148a share capital and share premium source of source creditworthiness of the creditor section 148a(d)

Judgments citing Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Palanisamy Jayakumar, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2969/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2967, 2968 & 2969/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. 14. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the :- 8 -: ITA Nos.2967 to 2969/Chny/2025 scope of the statutory provisions conferring…

Palanisamy Jayakumar, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2968/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2967, 2968 & 2969/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Palanisamy Jayakumar, Triuppur vs. Iot Ward 2(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2967/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2967, 2968 & 2969/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Mercy Chandira, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2653/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CITFor Respondent: 08.12.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस .आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.2653/CHNY/2025 "नधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mercy Chandira, ITO, No.2/249, Padavatyamman Kovil vs. Non-Corporate Ward - 22(1), Street, West Tambaram, Thazhampur, Navalur, Chennai. Kanchipuram District – 603 103. [PAN: EOQPM-4590-R] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) : Mrs. Lekha, CA. अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. ARV Sr…

Vivek Kumarasamy, Kannimadaiyapudur vs. Income Tax Officer, Erode

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

ITA 2512/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2512/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vasanthanayagan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. 14. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction and the subject matter of…

Kamaraj Priya, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvarur

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

ITA 2484/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2484/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. The Ito, Kamaraj Priya, 2/94, Chinnaian Street, Ward-1, Karuvakurichi, Tiruvarur 614 018. Tiruvarur. [Pan:Dwqpp1186K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. 13. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative ITA No.24847Chny/25 (AY 2019-20) Kamaraj Priya :: 7 :: part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of the statutory pro…

Subramanian Bashkaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 10(6), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2538/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 19.11.2025

Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस .आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.2538/CHNY/2025 "नधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Subramanian Bashkaran, ITO, J-3 Paras Apts, vs. Non-Corp Ward-10(6), 11, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Chennai. Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AKMPB-6942-L] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) : Mr. Girish Kumar S, Advocate अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C…

Jithender Tatia, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-115(92), Chennai

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

ITA 2618/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2618/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Jithender Tatia, The Ito, No.127, 9Th Block, Flat No.9031, Ward-115(92), 3Rd Floor, Tvh Lumbini Square, Chennai. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 007. [Pan: Aafpj 8967 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

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

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. 13. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction and the subject matter…

Vlspl 136 Vangloor Paccs, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2609/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2609/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Vlspl 136 Vangloor Primary The Ito, Agricultural Coop. Credit Society, Ward-1, Vlspl 136 Vangloor Pacb, Vellore. Walajapet, Vellore-632 513. [Pan: Aabav 0564 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. VLSPL 136 Vangloor PACCS :: 7 :: 14. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction and the subject matter…

Dicto Dino Raj Dennis, Kodimunai, Kalkulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nagercoil, Income Tax Office

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

ITA 2561/CHNY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Dicto Dino Raj Dennis, The Ito, No.4/218, Anbiyam-23, Kodimunai, Ward-(1), Kodimunai Post, Kalkulam Taluka, Nagercoil. Kanyakumari-629 251. [Pan: Brlpd 0629 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. 13. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction and the subject matter…

Sa Feeds, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 2550/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…d appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. 13. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction and the subject matter of…

Palaniyappan Loganathan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Salem

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

ITA 2549/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2549/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Palaniyappan Loganathan, The Ito, 5/95, South Street, Ward-1(2), Navalur Attur, Salem. Salem-636 116. [Pan: Aqjpl 5540 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. 13. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction and the subject matter…

Sundaram Yesuraja Sunil, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corprate Ward 9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2545/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2545/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sundaram Yesuraja Sunil, The Ito, Dr.No.1/10, Non-Corporate Ward-9(1), Kovur Vaithyanathan Street, Chennai. Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Gedps 3793 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Girish Kumar. S, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar. SFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. 13. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction and the subject matter…

Sathiskumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode

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

ITA 2537/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2537/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Sathishkumar, The Ito, 1/126, Senkuttaipalayam Ward-1, Seerampalayam Post, Tiruchengode. Samayasangali Agraharam, Tiruchengode, Namakkal-638 008. [Pan: Ggwps 7474 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar. SFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…n of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. Sathishkumar :: 7 :: 13. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction and the subject matter…

Vellaisamy Natarajan, Pudhukurichi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: 19.11.2025

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद%य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.2520/CHNY/2025 'नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vellaisamy Natarajan, ITO, 59, (Old No.1), Pudhukurichi vs. Ward-1, Govindhamangalam Post, Karaikudi. Pudhukurichi – 623 401. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AGBPN-1699-P] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent) : Mr. S. Velpandiar, Advocate अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T.…

Kgn Fitness & Development Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2370/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

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

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस .आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.2369 & 2370/CHNY/2025 ("नधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year:2016-17) KGN Fitness & Developers The Income Tax Officer, Private Ltd, vs. Corporate Ward-4(3), Flat No. G2 Sai Krupa, Chennai. No. 67, A.C. Block, First Street, Shanti Colony, Anna Nagar Chennai - 600 040. [PAN: AACCK-8712-A] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/Appell…

Kgn Fitness & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2369/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

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

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस .आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.2369 & 2370/CHNY/2025 ("नधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year:2016-17) KGN Fitness & Developers The Income Tax Officer, Private Ltd, vs. Corporate Ward-4(3), Flat No. G2 Sai Krupa, Chennai. No. 67, A.C. Block, First Street, Shanti Colony, Anna Nagar Chennai - 600 040. [PAN: AACCK-8712-A] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/Appell…

Abdul Kani Kareem, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1905/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 18.11.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस .आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.1904 & 1905/CHNY/2025 "नधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Abdul Kani Kareem, ITO, No.19/27, Kamarajapuram Main Road, vs. Non-Corp Ward-22(1), Kamarajapuram Tambaram. Chennai – 600 073. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: BEDPK-5843-R] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) : Ms. T.V Muthu Abirami, Advocate अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/ Appellant by : M…

Abdul Kani Kareem, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1904/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 18.11.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस .आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ITA Nos.1904 & 1905/CHNY/2025 "नधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Abdul Kani Kareem, ITO, No.19/27, Kamarajapuram Main Road, vs. Non-Corp Ward-22(1), Kamarajapuram Tambaram. Chennai – 600 073. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: BEDPK-5843-R] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) : Ms. T.V Muthu Abirami, Advocate अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/ Appellant by : M…

Thurapsha Syed Ibrahim, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 1884/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1884/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Thurapsha Syed Ibrahim, The Ito, No.6/16, Pallivasal Street, Ward-4, Vedampudur, Aiyampuram P.O., Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 805. [Pan: Abepi 2962E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. 13. In the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [2003] 263 ITR 658 (SC), the Apex Court held that what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in positive or negative form. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction and the subject matter…