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 148Section 147Section 144BSection 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 136Section 144

Issues it is cited on

doctrine of mergernon-speaking ordersection 151asection 31paper companyfaceless assessmentsection 251(2)section 148ashare capital and share premiumsource of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorsection 148a(d)

Judgments citing Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu

ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delight Resorts P.Ltd, Ghaziabad

ITA 6401/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delight Resorts P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 5974/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

M/S Globus Real Infra Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2920/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Star Light Consumer Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6070/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Superstar Agency Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5832/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5831/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5744/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 5742/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sukhna Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5741/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunlight Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd., Sahibabad

ITA 5740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sintex Consumers Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 5736/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Supreme Placement Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

ITA 4691/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…7.4 Page 23 CIT(A)’s without laying any law is order) not declaration of law. For  The appellant company and this relied upon S. its investor companies are Shanmugavel Nadar. V nothing but a creation of State of Tamil Nadu [2003] paper companies to transfer 263 ITR 658 (SC) its funds from alleged Bhushan Steel Ltd. to Case laws relied upon by the A.O various companies, through • Kale Khan Mohammad the appellant company and its investor companies. Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1  The appellant company has (SC) not given any cogent • CIT V Lachhman Das Oswal reasoning for the fund (1980) 126 ITR 446 (P&H) flow. Appe…

DCIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. Sri Bajrang Kumar Agrawal, Sundargarh

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/CTK/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshmamat, CIT DR
Section 271Section 292B

…IT vs. Chandulal (152 ITR 238) & Srinivasa Pitty & Sons vs. CIT (173 ITR 306). (v) The CIT (Appeals) ought to have held that the case of SSA's Emeralds Meadow vs. CIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) is not binding in view of the decision of Shanmugavel Nadar (263 ITR 658) (SC), as the same is merely a dismissal, where it was held that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent. (vi) The CIT (Appeals) ought to have followed the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Skylight Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT, dated 06- 04-2018, where in it was held that "we are convinced t…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tega Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1049/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

…n'ble Tribunal. 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid out on many occasions that unless an issue or decision has been discussed in detail in a judicial pronouncement it cannot make good law. In the case of Shanmugavel Nadar V. State of Tamil Nadu. & Another (263 ITR 658), the Apex Court has pronounced the following : “Rup Diamonds V. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 674, is an authority for the proposition that apart altogether from the merits of the grounds for rejection, the mere rejection by a superior forum, resulting in refusal of exercise of its jurisdiction which was invoked, could not by itself be construed a…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tega Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1048/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

…n'ble Tribunal. 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid out on many occasions that unless an issue or decision has been discussed in detail in a judicial pronouncement it cannot make good law. In the case of Shanmugavel Nadar V. State of Tamil Nadu. & Another (263 ITR 658), the Apex Court has pronounced the following : “Rup Diamonds V. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 674, is an authority for the proposition that apart altogether from the merits of the grounds for rejection, the mere rejection by a superior forum, resulting in refusal of exercise of its jurisdiction which was invoked, could not by itself be construed a…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tega Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1047/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

…n'ble Tribunal. 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid out on many occasions that unless an issue or decision has been discussed in detail in a judicial pronouncement it cannot make good law. In the case of Shanmugavel Nadar V. State of Tamil Nadu. & Another (263 ITR 658), the Apex Court has pronounced the following : “Rup Diamonds V. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 674, is an authority for the proposition that apart altogether from the merits of the grounds for rejection, the mere rejection by a superior forum, resulting in refusal of exercise of its jurisdiction which was invoked, could not by itself be construed a…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Hari Prasad Bhararia, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as C

ITA 532/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Visakhapatnam. B-101, Vuda Apartments, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.43/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 532/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2009-10) Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, B-101, Vuda Apartments, Visakhapatnam. Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 274Section 292Section 292B

…Vs. Chandulal (1 52 ITR 238)(AP) and Srinivasa Pitty & Sons Vs.CIT (173 ITR 306)(AO). (iv) The CIT(A) ought to have held that the case of SSA's Emeralds Meadow Vs. CIT(2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) is not binding in view of the decision of Shanmugavel Nadar (263 ITR 658)(SC), as the same is merely a dismissal, where it was held that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent. (vi) The CIT(A) ought to have followed the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Skylight Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT, dated 06-04-2018 wherein it was held that "We are convinced that wrong na…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Chilukuri Housing Projects Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 243/VIZ/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Chilukuri Housing Projects Visakhapatnam. Pvt. Ltd., 9-21-17/2, Ground Floor, Street No. 21, Cbm Compound, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aadcc 1027 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Appala Raju – Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…curiam. 4. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that mere dismissal of SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs SSA's Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann 248) without laying down any la on the subject cannot be said to be declaration of law by the Supreme Court (263 ITR 658). 5. The appellant craves leave to add or amend or alter or delete any ground at the time of hearing of the appeal. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, the appellant prays that the impugned penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act he restored.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the a…

Karpara Project Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2223/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2223/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13

Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of 7 speaking order, it does not constitute a law declared by Hon’ble Supreme court, and as such, it is not binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar vs. State of Tamilnadu [2003]; 263 ITR 658 (SC) held that “A summary dismissal by the Supreme Court without laying down any law is not a declaration of law as envisaged in article 141 of the Constitution of India. For declaration of law, there should be a speaking order. A decision which is not express and is not formulated on reasons nor on a consideration of the issue can not be deem…