← All Phrases

“doctrine of merger”

MiscellaneousDoctrine of MergerDoctrine of Merger303 judgments

The decision most relied on for doctrine of merger is Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (245 ITR 360), cited in 361 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on doctrine of merger

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
245 ITR 360 · 2000 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

1. AIR 1951 SC 467: HARLA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 2
2 SCC 453 · 1997 · Reported
222
citing judgments

When an appeal or revision is filed against an order passed by a subordinate forum, and a superior forum modifies, reverses, or affirms that decision, the order of the subordinate forum merges into the superior forum's decision, which then becomes the sole operative and enforceable order.

CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.
293 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
129
citing judgments

The limitation period for initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 concerning matters not subject to reassessment begins from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order. The doctrine of merger does not apply to issues not examined during reassessment proceedings.

Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu
263 ITR 658 · 2003 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd.
231 ITR 50 · 1998 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263, as clarified by Explanation (c) of Section 263(1) (retrospectively inserted by the Finance Act, 1989), extend to and are deemed always to have extended to matters that were not considered and decided in an appeal. This means the CIT can revise an order even if it was appealed, provided the specific issue under revision was not part of the appeal proceedings.

Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT
108 ITR 407 · 1977 · High Court
47
citing judgments

A revision order under section 263 is invalid if it is based solely on an audit objection without independent application of mind by the Commissioner. The Assessing Officer must apply their own mind rather than relying on audit party notes.

Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India
4 SCC 187 · 1989 · Reported
40
citing judgments

Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in limine does not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, nor does it confirm the view of the lower court.

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry v. CIT
34 ITR 342 · 1958 · High Court
29
citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot enhance income on an issue that was not the subject matter of the original assessment proceedings. The appellate authority is empowered to decide any matter arising in the assessment proceedings, even if not raised in the appeal, provided it is covered by the order appealed against.

Judgments citing doctrine of merger

Maker Tower F Premises Co-Op. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1360/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “I. DISMISSAL OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST INTIMATION U/S 143(1) ON THE GROUNDS OF DOCTRINE OF MERGER: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT (Appeals)] erred ... dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant against the intimation under section 143(1) treating it as infructuous on the grounds of doctrine of merger. 1.2 The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not deciding the appeal filed against the intimation under section 143(1) on the merit. 1.3 The learned

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Tvm

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri R Rajeev, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 3(1)Section 40Section 5

that was considered in the reassessment proceedings as well as the 263 proceedings for these years were on different issues and therefore the doctrine of merger will not apply. He thus submitted that the decisions Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 133 to 137/Coch/2023 relied by the Ld.CIT(A) would ... before us. 14. At the outset, we note that the appeals for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 will not fall within the doctrine of merger as observed by Ld.CIT(A) since the issue considered under 263 proceedings as well as 147 proceedings are different. The issue that is raised

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Tvm

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri R Rajeev, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 3(1)Section 40Section 5

that was considered in the reassessment proceedings as well as the 263 proceedings for these years were on different issues and therefore the doctrine of merger will not apply. He thus submitted that the decisions Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 133 to 137/Coch/2023 relied by the Ld.CIT(A) would ... before us. 14. At the outset, we note that the appeals for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 will not fall within the doctrine of merger as observed by Ld.CIT(A) since the issue considered under 263 proceedings as well as 147 proceedings are different. The issue that is raised

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Tvm

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 135/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri R Rajeev, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 3(1)Section 40Section 5

that was considered in the reassessment proceedings as well as the 263 proceedings for these years were on different issues and therefore the doctrine of merger will not apply. He thus submitted that the decisions Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 133 to 137/Coch/2023 relied by the Ld.CIT(A) would ... before us. 14. At the outset, we note that the appeals for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 will not fall within the doctrine of merger as observed by Ld.CIT(A) since the issue considered under 263 proceedings as well as 147 proceedings are different. The issue that is raised

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Tvm

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri R Rajeev, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 3(1)Section 40Section 5

that was considered in the reassessment proceedings as well as the 263 proceedings for these years were on different issues and therefore the doctrine of merger will not apply. He thus submitted that the decisions Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 133 to 137/Coch/2023 relied by the Ld.CIT(A) would ... before us. 14. At the outset, we note that the appeals for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 will not fall within the doctrine of merger as observed by Ld.CIT(A) since the issue considered under 263 proceedings as well as 147 proceedings are different. The issue that is raised

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Tvm

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri R Rajeev, CA
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 3(1)Section 40Section 5

that was considered in the reassessment proceedings as well as the 263 proceedings for these years were on different issues and therefore the doctrine of merger will not apply. He thus submitted that the decisions Page 5 of 8 ITA Nos. 133 to 137/Coch/2023 relied by the Ld.CIT(A) would ... before us. 14. At the outset, we note that the appeals for A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 will not fall within the doctrine of merger as observed by Ld.CIT(A) since the issue considered under 263 proceedings as well as 147 proceedings are different. The issue that is raised

Termoplast Pollypacks Italy India Pvt. Ltd., Tiruvallur vs. The DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 1104/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1104/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M.Karunakaran, Advocate
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246(1)(a)Section 250

emanating from the order u/s 143(3) dated 09.02.2021…” 3.0 Before us the Ld.AR has argued that as per the principles of doctrine of merger the order u/s 143(1) dated 29.03.2019 has merged with the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 09.02.2021 of the AO and consequently Ld.CIT ... event to cause grievance to the assesse. In view of the clear statutory position of section 246(1)(a) above, the hypothesis of doctrine of merger do not arise in this case. We find that the first appellate authority has rightly dismissed the assessee’s appeal

Societe Generale Global Solution Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1028/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Rony Antony, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 44ASection 90

issued under section 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the said addition(s) ought to be deleted by applying the principles of 'Doctrine of merger'.” 3. We have heard the both the parties on admission of additional grounds. In our opinion, all the facts are already on record ... void. Further, as the case of assessee was scrutinized u/s. 143(2) and assessment order u/s. 143(3) was passed, technically the doctrine of merger comes into picture, therefore the impugned adjustment by CPC gets merged into order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and order passed

Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax(OSD), Nagpur

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

that the same was merely dismissal of SLP filed against the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which does not attracts the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of order put in before it, nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme

Usha Janakalyan Nagar Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-30(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4695/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalusha Janakalyan Nagar Vs. Ito-30(1)(1), Chs Ltd, Kautilya Bhavan, 211, Bkc, Bandra (E), Kharodi,Marveroad, Mumbai-400051. Malad (W), Mumbai-400095. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaau1039J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Kunal Lunawat.Ar Respondent By : Ms. Rajeswari Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit (A) Passed U/Sec 154 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Kunal Lunawat.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeswari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Ld.CIT(A) erred in recording perverse findings of fact as well as the interpretation of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act and doctrine of merger without application of mind, and in treating the appeal as void / non- maintainable and treating mistake apparent from record NOT as a mistake apparent

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

part of the assessment order, the subject- matter of which had nothing to do with that item of income, in such a case, doctrine of merger did not apply and that the period of limitation would commence from the date of original assessment and not from the reassessment since

Surpreet Singh Suri, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-6, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the issue on merit is

ITA 1118/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

fact that not an iota of word was discussed with regard to the unexplained cash addition of Rs. 26,75,000/-. The doctrine of merger of the first appellate order of learned CIT(A) with the order of the Tribunal would not come into action in the present facts

ACIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M B Patil Construction Limited, Mumbai

ITA 98/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed." 21. Supreme Court in Maruti (infra) held that doctrine of merger applies, and the judgment of the Delhi High Court stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 22. PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India ... jurisdictional defect; (f) Draft assessment order and the final assessment order referred to both the names; (g) In case of Spice, doctrine of merger with the judgment of SC shall not apply. ➤ The main contentions of the Assessee were as follows: a) Upon a scheme of amalgamation being sanctioned

M/S M.B.Patil Constructions Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 303/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed." 21. Supreme Court in Maruti (infra) held that doctrine of merger applies, and the judgment of the Delhi High Court stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 22. PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India ... jurisdictional defect; (f) Draft assessment order and the final assessment order referred to both the names; (g) In case of Spice, doctrine of merger with the judgment of SC shall not apply. ➤ The main contentions of the Assessee were as follows:- a) Upon a scheme of amalgamation being sanctioned

Purse-Seine Fishermen'S Primary Service Co-Op. Society Ltd., Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Udupi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 236/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)

original Assessment Order dt. 2603-2021 and appeal was rightly preferred against the latter order (Rectification Order) in consonance with the principle of 'Doctrine of Merger’. 2. Whether both the authorities below are right in denying benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act against the interest on investments

Addl CIT R G 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd ( Formerly Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. ), Mumbai

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

Delhi High Court), particularly the ratio laid down on the question of law before it, in view of the well-known Doctrine of Merger. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar vs State of T.N. (2002) 8 SCC 361 367 has held that

Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1278/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd…….….…………............…...……………....Appellant Siddha Weston, Room No.126, 9, Weston Street, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aafcr2959B] Vs. Pcit-4, Kolkata…………..….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 12.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. As Per The Note Of The Registry, The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1722 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Which Is Further Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Bhupendra Bansal, Director Of The Assessee Company. It Has Been Explained That The Impugned Order Dated 12.03.2019. That The Copy Of The Order Was Not Served Upon The Assessee. That The Assessee Came To Know About The Passing Of The Impugned Order Only After The Receipt Of The Subsequent Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act. The Assessee

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

quasi- judicial office has discharged his dual role as an investigator as well as an adjudicator. Looking from another angle of doctrine of merger canvassed before us, we note from the facts of this case that the second Ld. Pr. CIT - 4 by passing the second revisional order dated ... No.1278/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd Pr.CIT, which direction since having been complied by the AO, brings into operation the doctrine of merger the subject matter i.e. share capital & premium collected by assessee company. Resultantly the second Ld. Pr.CIT, again cannot rake-up the same subject matter

Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 459/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.459/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd....................…...……………....Appellant 6, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Jorbagan, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aaacv8673M] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-1, Kolkata…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Aayush Kedia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 14.03.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Vide Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2018-19 Declared Total Income Of Rs.1,09,24,210/- Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Carried Out U/S 143(3) Of The Act. However, Later On, The Ld. Pr. Cit In Exercising Of His Revision

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

quasi- judicial office has discharged his dual role as an investigator as well as an adjudicator. Looking from another angle of doctrine of merger canvassed before us, we note from the facts of this case that the second Ld. Pr. CIT - 4 by passing the second revisional order dated ... which specific directions/instructions were given by the First Ld. Pr.CIT, which direction since having been complied by the AO, brings into operation the doctrine of merger the subject matter i.e. share capital & premium collected by assessee company. Resultantly the second Ld. Pr.CIT, again cannot rake-up the same subject matter

Vg Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 812/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.812/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. V.G. Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1 बनाम/ Vs. 66, Subbiah Mudaliar Street, Coimbatore. Thomas Street, Coimbatore-641 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-1589-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

that the assessment proceedings, in totality, was already subject matter of adjudication before first appellate authority at the time of revision and therefore, doctrine of merger would apply. Reliance has been placed on the recent decision of this Tribunal in Prabhu Kanimozhi vs. Pr. CIT (ITA No.350/Chny/2022 dated 21.04.2023) wherein

Golden Vats Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 416/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman (FCA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)Section 3Section 40

that the assessment proceedings, in totality, was already subject matter of adjudication before first appellate authority at the time of revision and therefore, doctrine of merger would apply. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Tribunal in Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi (ITA Nos.340/Chny/2022 & ors. order dated 03.08.2022) wherein Tribunal