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.

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 658)

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

…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.: 719/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Thangamuthu Balakrishnan, ITO, No. 3/645 A, Mettumadai vs. Ward – 1(1), Thottam, Tiruppur. Vavipalayam, Tiruppur – 641 666. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: ANGPB-2242-J] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A '(थ& की ओर से/Res…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण’ ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण’ ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम%। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील 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) C.O No.3/Chny/2025 (Arises in ITA…

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

…iction 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. Gaurav Logistics 11. 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…

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

…preme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of Kandasamy Selvaraj :: 7 :: 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…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण’ ’सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम'। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.930/2025 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Chellappan Sankaranathan, v. The ACIT, No.33, New No.105, EM Street, International Taxation Circle, Puduvayal, Sivaganga, Madurai. Tamilnadu-630 108. [PAN:AAWPS 4474 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.N.V. Narayanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर…

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

…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. 15. 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…

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

…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. 12. 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…

Kuppusamy Muthuvel, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Chennai

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

ITA 944/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.944/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Kuppusamy Muthuvel, The Income Tax Officer, No.23/1 Arasu Elango Street, Ward-2(4), Eripalayajm Po, Udumalpet Tk, Tirupur. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-642126 [Pan: Axepm0652R] (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

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

…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. 12. 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…

Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai, Kanyakumari vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Tuticorin

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

ITA 1357/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1357/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai, The Ito, 12-5 G/4, Kumaragam Garden, International Taxation Ward, Channel Street, Vadakkoor, Thovalai, Tuticorin. Kanyakumari 629 302. [Pan: Ahepb 2348 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-16, (Hereinafter In Short ‘The Ld.Cit(A)’), Dated 31.07.2024 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short ‘Ay’) 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of ‘224’ Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Pleaded, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai :: 2 :: 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel 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 Ld.Dr, Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit, Objected Admission Of Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee.

For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

…an Bhagavathiperumal Pillai :: 7 :: 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. 12. 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…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 80/CTK/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 27

…g precedent and is not to be followed. CIT V. B. R. Constructions (AP) 202 ITR 222. 3. The order relied on by the learned AR is per incurium also because it is passed ignoring the binding precedent in the form of the decision in the case of Shanmugaveal Nadar 263 ITR 658 (SC) holding that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent and following the decision in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) rejecting the Revenue SLP by a non-speaking order. This submission of the DR mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order has been ignored. 4. Rejection of SLP does no…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 79/CTK/2009[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 27

…g precedent and is not to be followed. CIT V. B. R. Constructions (AP) 202 ITR 222. 3. The order relied on by the learned AR is per incurium also because it is passed ignoring the binding precedent in the form of the decision in the case of Shanmugaveal Nadar 263 ITR 658 (SC) holding that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent and following the decision in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) rejecting the Revenue SLP by a non-speaking order. This submission of the DR mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order has been ignored. 4. Rejection of SLP does no…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 78/CTK/2009[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1985-86

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 27

…g precedent and is not to be followed. CIT V. B. R. Constructions (AP) 202 ITR 222. 3. The order relied on by the learned AR is per incurium also because it is passed ignoring the binding precedent in the form of the decision in the case of Shanmugaveal Nadar 263 ITR 658 (SC) holding that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent and following the decision in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) rejecting the Revenue SLP by a non-speaking order. This submission of the DR mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order has been ignored. 4. Rejection of SLP does no…

Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai vs. Centaur Merchantile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 324/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood (JM) I.T.A. Nos. 324,325 & 326/Mum/2020 (Assessment Years : 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) DCIT,CC-4(1) Centaur Merchantile Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Room NO.1918, 10th Floor, 215 Atrium 19th Floor, Andheri Kurla Road Air India Building Andheri(E) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 021 PAN : AACCC4199F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Department by Shri Jasbir Singh Chauhan Date of Hearing 07/09/2021 Date of Pronouncement 20 /09/2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These are Revenue’s appeal…