SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI VARGHESE M.UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

SRI.VARUGEHESE M. UTHUP,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeals was not granted. According to the CIT(A), as per the IT Act, for an appeal to be valid, the appeal has to be filed, as per section 249(2)(b) within 30

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1),THRISSUR, THRISSUR

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceeded to adjudicated the following grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee: - *"1. This is an Appeal by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) by the Ld. AO on 21/12/2018 and disallowed the deduction u/s 80 P. The appellant Avinissery Service Co-operative Bank Limited

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO ,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANAGALAM KOZHIKODE,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO,WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case

PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD TDS, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

30. In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, this Court, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. In that case

M/S.THE NELLIAMPATHY TEA & PRODUCE CO.LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

30 days. There is a delay of 10 days from 22nd June 2015 and we request you to please condone the delay." 5. On verification of the assessment record, the CIT(A) observed that the statements made in the condonation petition do not reflect the correct facts. The Assessing Officer passed an order under section

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee