What is Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala authority for?

An assessment order is time-barred if the department fails to prove that the order was dispatched within the prescribed period of limitation. The burden lies on the department to make the dispatch date available from records to establish timely issuance.

How many judgments cite Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala?

54 judgments on BharatTax cite Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala (69 STC 62), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 153A, Section 234B, Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(1).

Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala (69 STC 62)

KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 877/KOL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rt of his proposition, appellant has cited the following judgments/decisions. I. Slate of Andhra Pradesh vs. M Ramakrishtaiah & Co.- 93 STC 40; (SC). 2. ('IT vs. Shri Narayani Chandrika Trust 212 ITR 456 (Ker) 3. Government of Wood Works vs. Stale of Kerala - 69 STC 62 (SC) 4. Mofatlal Industries Ltd. & Another vs. ('TO & Others - 101 STC 461 (ITAT; Kolkata). 5. Shanti Lal Ghodawat & ors. Vs, ACIT- (2009) 7261TJ (Jd) 135 (ITAT. Jodhpur) 6. CIT vs. MA. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand& Sons - 2008 TMI- 3777 (P &HHC) 7. M/s. Dilip Mohan Seth vs. no - ITA No. 2110//Kol/2009 (ITAT, Kolkata) 8. CIT vs. Kappumalai Estate- (/9…

KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 878/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rt of his proposition, appellant has cited the following judgments/decisions. I. Slate of Andhra Pradesh vs. M Ramakrishtaiah & Co.- 93 STC 40; (SC). 2. ('IT vs. Shri Narayani Chandrika Trust 212 ITR 456 (Ker) 3. Government of Wood Works vs. Stale of Kerala - 69 STC 62 (SC) 4. Mofatlal Industries Ltd. & Another vs. ('TO & Others - 101 STC 461 (ITAT; Kolkata). 5. Shanti Lal Ghodawat & ors. Vs, ACIT- (2009) 7261TJ (Jd) 135 (ITAT. Jodhpur) 6. CIT vs. MA. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand& Sons - 2008 TMI- 3777 (P &HHC) 7. M/s. Dilip Mohan Seth vs. no - ITA No. 2110//Kol/2009 (ITAT, Kolkata) 8. CIT vs. Kappumalai Estate- (/9…

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

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

ITA 630/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…he assessee has further relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: i. State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Ramakrishtaiah & Co. - 93 STC 406 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Shri Narayani Chandrika Trust - 212 ITR 456 (Ker) iii. Government of Wood Works vs. State of Kerala 69 STC 62 referring to the decision and observations of Apex Court in the case of B. J. Shelat vs. State of Gujrat iv. The Hon'ble West Bengal Taxation Tribunal’s decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Another vs. CTO & Others- 101 STC 461 v. Shanti Lal Ghodawat & Ors. Vs. ACIT - (2009) 126 TTJ (Jd) 135 vi. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court…

M/S. ROSEWOOD MERCANTILE PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 582/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…on. However, apparently, the orders were shown by the assessee after period of limitation and hence, the orders are barred by limitation. The ld. AR also referred to the decision of Kerala High Court in case of Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62, which was also referred by the Karnataka High Court in B J N Hotels Ltd.(supra), wherein it has been held that in absence of dispatch date made available to the court from the records, to prove that the order is issued within the prescribed period, the order passed by AO is barred by limitation. 010. The ld. AR also negated the second contention…

M/S. ROSEWOOD MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 581/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C. Roy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…on. However, apparently, the orders were shown by the assessee after period of limitation and hence, the orders are barred by limitation. The ld. AR also referred to the decision of Kerala High Court in case of Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62, which was also referred by the Karnataka High Court in B J N Hotels Ltd.(supra), wherein it has been held that in absence of dispatch date made available to the court from the records, to prove that the order is issued within the prescribed period, the order passed by AO is barred by limitation. 010. The ld. AR also negated the second contention…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 445/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 442/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 441/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 364/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

ITA 363/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time." 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- "14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

ITA 362/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 360/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 359/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

ITA 358/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 357/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

For Appellant: D. Anand, Advocate

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

ITA 356/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

Section 40A(3)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No.90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept i…

INSTRUMENTATION LABORATORY INDIA PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2051/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Instrumentation Laboratory Vs. Dcit India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(2) 1471-1476, 14Th Floor, New Delhi Aggarwal Millennium Tower- 2, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Aabci6557N Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 234CSection 271

…ed as under: "An identical issue was before this Court in ITA No.832/2008 (D.D. 14.10.2014 in the case of Maharaja Shopping Complex vs DCIT. This court following the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood works vs State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62 has held that in the absence of dispatch date made available to the Court from the records, to prove that the order is issued within the prescribed period, order passed by AO is barred by limitation. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case." 13. To the same effect are the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, which ar…

SHRI. RAHUL UDAYASHANKAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 869/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 11Section 143Section 250Section 69A

…ITA No.869/Bang/2023 Shri Rahul Udayashankar, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Shri Rahul Udayashankar, Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Represented by his GPA Holder International Taxation, Shri C Udayashankar, Ward-2(1), 851-C, 17th G Main, Bengaluru. 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010. PAN – ADCPU 8060 D APPELANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Annamalai, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept. Date of hearing : 03.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 O…

OPG SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit, Opg House, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Spl. Range-7, New Delhi – 110 002. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco1081C

For Appellant: Ms Somya Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Raja Rajeswari R, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala reported in 69 STC 62 in T.R.C. No. 90 of 1986 dated 14.01.1987 while dealing with the issue of necessity of communication of any order had held as under:- “14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept…

ALKA CHATURVEDI,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

The appeals are allowed and the impugned demand on the basis of non-est orders is quashed

ITA 2488/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2486/Del/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 Abhimanyu Chaturvedi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D-64, Sector 47, Income Tax, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Central Circle-I, Noida Noida- 201303 Pan : Anqpc4031N Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 271Section 69ASection 69C

…ate of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Ramakishitah & co. (1994) 93 STC 406 (SC,) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand And Sons in ITA no. 522 of 2007 dated 13.03.2008, CAGIT Vs. Kappumalai Estate (1998) 234 ITR 187 (Ker.), Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62 (Ker) and CIT & Anr. Vs. BJN Hotels Ltd. [2016] 382 ITR 110 (Karn), Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) V Hiren Bhatt (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj.) to submit that if the assessment order are not served before time barring date of assessment then they are considered to be non-est. Reliance in this regard was also placed on the Tribunal order in ITA No. 3556 & 3557/D…

Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala

What is Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala

KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

NEHA DIWAN,HINDMOTOR vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

M/S. ROSEWOOD MERCANTILE PVT. LTD..,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

M/S. ROSEWOOD MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

INSTRUMENTATION LABORATORY INDIA PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

SHRI. RAHUL UDAYASHANKAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

OPG SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

ALKA CHATURVEDI,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA