Search: condonation of delay

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

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

ITA 166/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 164/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 170/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 172/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 167/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 163/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 162/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 169/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 168/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 165/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 171/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

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

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

ITA 161/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 249(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restore the case back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter. 2.1 The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeals on account of delay in filing the same before the CIT(A). I.T.A. Nos.161-172/Coch/2019

M/S.JEENA HOTEL & UDAYA BAR,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 271BSection 44A

condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.1 lakh levied u/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act. I.T.A. No.265/Coch/2018 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 810/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 250

section 143 (3) of the Act on 15-11-2019, by the Income-tax officer, Ward 3 , Aluva, on a total income of Rs. 3,15,580/-, accepting the income returned, which included commission from sale of stamps. 8.1 Further, the assessee stated that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC grossly erred in not condoning the delay of 5 months

SRI.ALAVIKUTTY,VENGARA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I(1)Section 27I(1)(c)

condone the delay and the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Your petitioner is very much aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi. This order is quite arbitrary and opposed to law and facts of the case. The appellant was working abroad

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 108/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 249(3)

section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 249(3)

section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

M/S.KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 109/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 249(3)

section 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 377/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

271. • Gujarat High Court in the case of Goodluck, Automobiles Private Limited (2012) 254 CTR 1 • Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Nirpal Singh [2013] 359 ITR 398 • Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 • Jodhpur ITAT in the case of Prithvi Raj Vohra (2012) 150 TTJ 57 • Ahmedabad ITAT

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE vs. M/S.ARDRA ASSOCIATES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 376/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

271. • Gujarat High Court in the case of Goodluck, Automobiles Private Limited (2012) 254 CTR 1 • Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Nirpal Singh [2013] 359 ITR 398 • Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 • Jodhpur ITAT in the case of Prithvi Raj Vohra (2012) 150 TTJ 57 • Ahmedabad ITAT