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

Mitali Creation Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Now Ward-1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2121/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am

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

…y a non-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 deemed…

M/S. Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6638/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Lower Ground Floor, C-4/5, New Delhi. Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi (Pan: Aadcp7362G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Ms. Shweta Kashyap, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.10.2013 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao") Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Making An Addition To The Total Income Of The Appellant Amounting To Rs. 95,945,630/- In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Drp") Upholding The Adjustment To The Transfer Price Proposed By The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Tpo").

For Appellant: S/sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Lower Ground Floor, C-4/5, New Delhi. Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi (PAN: AADCP7362G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S/sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, Adv. and Ms. Shweta Kashyap, CA Respondent by : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 26.10.2015 Date of pronouncement: 22.01.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: The present appeal by the assessee is direct…