How many judgments cite P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala?

59 judgments on BharatTax cite P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (7 SCC 556), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 253(5), Section 249(3), Section 250, Section 147, Section 1961, Section 143(3).

P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

7 SCC 556Reported decision1997#1959 most cited

What is P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala authority for?

The law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour, and courts cannot extend the period of limitation on mere equitable considerations or for casual explanations without sufficient cause. Parties must demonstrate diligence and a bona fide reason for the delay.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala · 7 SCC 556 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · law of limitation · strict application · equitable grounds · Section 249(3) · Income-tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 253(5)Section 249(3)Section 250 Section 147 Section 1961 Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 250 of the Income-tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 256 section 202 section 66 short deduction of tds section 253(5)section 253(3)bona fide mistake section 249(3)section 249(2)section 200a(1)delay in filing appeal section 249

Judgments citing P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

KSHATRIYA VIKAS PARISAD GUJARAT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 1109 days, the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay is dismissed

ITA 2485/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Mauli Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

…ay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that courts cannot condone delay in a mechanical manner where the explanation furnished is casual and lacking in bona fides. 8. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556 held that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and courts cannot extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds where no sufficient cause is shown for the delay. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 has further held that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be…

TIRUMALA RAO BATTU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 312/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

…e the Government or a private party has a good case on merits. The applicant must explain each day’s delay satisfactorily.” Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.312/VIZ/2025 Tirumala Rao Battu Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 has categorically held that: “Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.” 10. Accordingly, by applying the above principles to the present case, I find that the explanation offered…

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 494/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

…is negligent. Delay cannot be condoned merely because the Government or a private party has a good case on merits. The applicant must explain each day’s delay satisfactorily.” Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 has held, as under: Page. No 14 I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy “Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.” Accordingly, by applying the above principles to the present…

SRIMAD VIRAT POTHULURI VEERABRAHMENDRA SWAMULAVARI MUTTAM,KADAPA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI

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

ITA 2287/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व द्वारा /Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: | 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/08/2023 & 21/10/2025 Respectively For The A.Y.2016-17.

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate

Section 253(5)

…cause” means a cause beyond the control of the party, and where delay is attributable to negligence or inaction, condonation cannot be granted as a matter of right. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 has held that law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour, and courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 6. In view of the above judicial principles and considering the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has failed to demonstrate any reasonable or sufficient…

SRIMAD VIRAT POTTULURI VEERA BRAHMENDRA SWAMULA VARI MATTAM,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATHI

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

ITA 1164/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Chenji, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.AR

…cause” means a cause beyond the control of the party, and where delay is attributable to negligence or inaction, condonation cannot be granted as a matter of right. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 has held that law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour, and courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. 6. In view of the above judicial principles and considering the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has failed to demonstrate any reasonable or sufficient…

KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

ITA 579/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

…o is negligent. Delay cannot be condoned merely because the Government or a private party has a good case on merits. The applicant must explain each day’s delay satisfactorily.” Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 has categorically held that: “Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.” Accordingly, by applying the above principles to the present case, I find that the explanation offered by t…

BODA RAMASATYANARAYANA,DRAKSHARAMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

ITA 532/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

…e Government or a private party has a good case on merits. The applicant must explain each day’s delay satisfactorily.” Page. No 6 I.T.A.No.532/VIZ/2025 Boda Ramasatyanarayana Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 has categorically held that: “Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.” Accordingly, by applying the above principles to the present case, I find that the explanation offered by…

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6881/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Hinal Shah &For Respondent: Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

…should be given in condonation matters, it has also clarified in numerous other judgments (e.g., P.K. Ramachandran v. State numerous other judgments (e.g., P.K. Ramachandran v. State numerous other judgments (e.g., P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556) that law of limitation must be applied Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556) that law of limitation must be applied Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556) that law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour when no sufficient cause is shown. Liberal with all its rigour when no sufficient cause is shown. Liberal with all its rigour when no sufficient cause is shown.…

NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6880/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Hinal Shah &For Respondent: Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

JAYKRISHNA D PATHAK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8722/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjaykrishna D Pathak, Vs. Dcit 32(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra 17/23 Amina Mansion, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- Kolsa Mohalla Nakoda 400051. Street, Mumbai-400019. Pan/Gir No: Agnpp3108K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

…not be treated as a “sufficient cause” in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of the Act for the inordinate delay of 5 years. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions, namely, (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024 held that condonation of delay shou…