“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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Rajesh Anirudha Patil, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

technicality itself. The reason is that the intimation under section 143(1) stands merged in the order under section 143(3). The doctrine of merger clearly applies on this and hence the present appeal is technically infructuous. Further, the appellant also filed an appeal against the order passed ... that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act stands merged in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act and that the doctrine of merger clearly applies on this is misconceived and is not in accordance with law. Referring to the provisions of section

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Bidadi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Or the DCIT, Circle - 7(1)(1), Koramangala

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

ITA 1539/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

have been disallowed. 31.2 The learned AR also submits that the DRP's conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction is incorrect, as the doctrine of merger of intimation order with the assessment order should have been applied in this case. The learned AR, therefore, urges us to grant appropriate relief

Sree Venkateshwara Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limited, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2339/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Aprameya K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(7)Section 249Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

issued under section 143(1) of the Act was merged with the intimation challenged before the Commissioner through CPGRAM, and as per the doctrine of merger, all prior intimations stand merged with the CPGRAM proceedings. 9. Further, it was submitted that the assessee had rightfully claimed deduction under section

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 7865/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

para 8) of the Assessment Order. It is indisputably clear that the amount involved relates to the income and not the deduction. 2. Doctrine of merger does not apply to the Order dated 27.11.2024 dismissing the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order ... against the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in HUDCO (supra) in limine. In this regard, it is submitted that as per doctrine of merger an order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non- speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd (Hudco), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 7629/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd (Hudco), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 7628/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd (Hudco), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 7626/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Mr.Jayaram Subramanaiam, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 26/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.26/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Mr.Jayaram Subramaniam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9A Nn Laxmi Street, Income Tax, Valasaravakkam, Central Circle-2(1), Aswathy, Chennai Chennai- 600 087. [Pan: Afaps5678H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Lavanya, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

light of material available on records. We have noted that the principal issue seminal to the controversy is as to whether doctrine of merger would be applicable in this case or not. The moot question is whether the disturbances made vide order u/s 143(1) can be challenged qua subsequent ... No.1104/Chny/2024 dated 12.07.2024 this tribunal had passed the following order :- “……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

Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3021/CHNY/2024[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 234DSection 263Section 80H

interest by AO u/s.234D of the Act of Rs.7,56,136/-, wherein it has been directed to be deleted, then by operation of doctrine of merger, the AO’s order levying interest u/s.234D of the Act doesn’t exist in the eyes of law since it got merged into

Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhilwara vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

ITA 1021/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

proceedings under section 263. Thus, it is evident from the above that the Explanation 1(c) to section 263 is based on the Doctrine of Merger, according to which there cannot he more than one decree or an operative order governing the same subject-matter at a given point

Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhilwara vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1015/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Date Of Hearing."

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

Owens-Corning (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4415/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37

demand of INR 3,04,61,600. 2. Re; Dismissal of appeal filed against intimation u/s 143(1) on the grounds of doctrine of merger; 2 Owens-Corning (India) Private Limited 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (Appeals) erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Vellore Subramanian Saravanan, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

ITA 1132/CHNY/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 54F

Aryamna Sundaram (supra) only for only for low tax effect and therefore, we accept that we accept that the principle of doctrine of doctrine of merger didn’t happen. However, the . However, the jurisdictional Hon’ble Madras High Court decision Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in the facts

Ind-Sphinx Precision Limited, Himachal Pradesh vs. PCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 348/CHANDI/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30-03-2022. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and made out a case of doctrine of merger. The Ld. AR also stated that revision has been proposed for the same very reasons for which the case was reopened. The Ld. CIT-DR also

Infosoft Global P Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 501/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

channels of rectification and appeal have been availed by the assessee. 8. However, in this context, it is relevant to examine the doctrine of merger. The intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act is separately appealable to the Ld. CIT(A) under section 246A ... assessment years 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 were to be quashed. [Para 21] 11. The doctrine of merger is a common law doctrine that is rooted in the idea of maintenance of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals, the doctrine is based

Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, Kota vs. ITO W-2(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against. Any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the applicability of doctrine of merger. It would not make a difference whether the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the order appealed against

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4611/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

stand of merged with order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act to extent of such common subject matter. The effect of doctrine of merger would be that the adjustment made under Section 143(1) of the Act would become an addition/disallowance made under Section ... 144B of the Act. Accordingly, we accept the contention of the Assessee that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the doctrine of merger would apply. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in entertaining and adjudicating the grounds raised

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4610/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4609/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

Isha Agrawal, Khargone vs. PCIT-Indore-1, Indore

In the result, both of the issues are remanded to the file of PCIT for a

ITA 457/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2015-16 Isha Agrawal, Pcit-1, 1, Aurangpura, Indore बनाम/ Khargone Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agfpa1915P Assessee By Shri Anil Garg & Shri Ayush Garg, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

subject-matter for consideration and decision by CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. PCIT has no legal authority to invoke revisionary jurisdiction as per ‘doctrine of merger’. In support of this proposition, Ld. AR relied upon three decisions, viz. JMC Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. PCIT ... addition of principal loan and not on the issue of interest disallowance. Therefore, the assessee cannot have benefit of ‘doctrine of merger’, in fact the department gets benefit of Explanation 1(c) to section 263(1). Ld. DR further Page 4 of 11 Isha Agrawal ITA No. 457/Ind/2024