<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (6) TMI 1332 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773219</link>
    <description>HC held that assessment orders issued after the time limit in s.144C(13) are invalid; an amendment incorporating s.144C must be interpreted in light of legislative purpose and read with the statute as a whole, not in isolation. The court declined to depart from earlier HC decisions reaching the same conclusion. Consequently the Assessing Officer is bound by the prescribed time bar and the writ petition was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 15:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1332 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773219</link>
      <description>HC held that assessment orders issued after the time limit in s.144C(13) are invalid; an amendment incorporating s.144C must be interpreted in light of legislative purpose and read with the statute as a whole, not in isolation. The court declined to depart from earlier HC decisions reaching the same conclusion. Consequently the Assessing Officer is bound by the prescribed time bar and the writ petition was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>