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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu

Dinesh Kumar and Sons, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2511/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2511/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Dinesh Kumar & Sons The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), No.41, M.S.Koil Street, Chennai. Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013. Pan: Aamhr 9861G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, 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…

Sowmya Kannan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2524/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2524/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ms. Sowmya Kannan, The Income Tax Officer, No.634-A, Ramasamy Salai, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(4), K K Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 078. Pan: Aaopk 5170F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor 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…

Arulmigu Vaikunda Perumal and Embarswamy Devasthanam, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Chennai

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

ITA 2525/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2525/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Arulmiguvaikunda The Income Tax Officer, Perumal & Embarswamy Vs. Exemptions Ward 2, Devasthanam, Chennai. No.01, Sunguvachatram, Sungavachatram S.O, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram – 602 105. Pan: Aafta 4259C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…te 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. :- 8 -: 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…

Sri Muthu Agencies, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 2507/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2507/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sri Muthu Agencies, The Income Tax Officer, No.9, 3Rd Cross, Vs. Ward 3, Sri Ramnagar, Puducherry Achariyapuram, Villianur, Puducherry – 605 110. Pan: Achfs 9277N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 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…

Sujatha Hariharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2491/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2490 & 2491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sujatha Hariharan, Old No.20, New No.8, Poes Road, 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai. Pan: Bgcps 5734A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Both Dated 24.07.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…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. 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…

Sujatha Hariharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2490/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2490 & 2491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sujatha Hariharan, Old No.20, New No.8, Poes Road, 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. Pan: Bgcps 5734A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Both Dated 24.07.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…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. 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…

Trd 309 Pallinatham Mpcs, Trichy vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2(1) Trichy, Trichy

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

ITA 2482/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2482/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Trd 309 Pallinatham The Income Tax Officer, Mpcs, Vs. Ward 2(1), Pallinatham Valavanthi Post, Trichy Musiri Tk, Tiruchirappalli – 621 211. Pan: Aafat 2275G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Alagappan, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Alagappan, CAFor 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…

Prabu Karuppaiah, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 2494/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2492, 2493 & 2494/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Prabu Karuppaiah, The Income Tax Officer, 8/115, Avudaiyarkoil Poovalur Vs. Ward 1, Bo, Pudukkottai Avadaiyar Kovil, Pudukkottai – 614 618. Pan: Clepp 3346R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor 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…

Prabu Karuppaiah, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 2493/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2492, 2493 & 2494/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Prabu Karuppaiah, The Income Tax Officer, 8/115, Avudaiyarkoil Poovalur Vs. Ward 1, Bo, Pudukkottai Avadaiyar Kovil, Pudukkottai – 614 618. Pan: Clepp 3346R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor 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…

Prabhu Karuppaiah, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

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

ITA 2492/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2492, 2493 & 2494/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Prabu Karuppaiah, The Income Tax Officer, 8/115, Avudaiyarkoil Poovalur Vs. Ward 1, Bo, Pudukkottai Avadaiyar Kovil, Pudukkottai – 614 618. Pan: Clepp 3346R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor 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…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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/Resp…