The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and the ex-parte rejection orders, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department. The matters were set aside to the CIT(Exemption) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to furnish necessary documents for registration.

The Tribunal found that the sale value, purchase cost, and cost of improvement of the property were not in dispute. The fixed deposits made out of the sale consideration were also not disputed. The Tribunal decided to adjudicate the issue on merits to serve the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme should be treated as exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relying on coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal found the assessee eligible for full tax exemption on the received compensation.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the VRS is exempt from tax under section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, following the precedent set by co-ordinate benches. The assessee was eligible for exemption of such compensation and refund of TDS.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 were satisfied. The PCIT's observation that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure on unsecured loans was considered valid.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to furnish documents and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause (medical hardship) from properly prosecuting the case before lower authorities. Citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting one opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's medical hardship and the need for substantial justice over technicalities, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from properly prosecuting the matter due to medical hardships. It emphasized deciding matters on merits rather than technicalities and thus set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea of compelling circumstances for non-response and the need for another opportunity. The Tribunal held that remanding the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration of the application, along with the assessee's submissions, would serve the interests of justice.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide substantial documents. However, to serve the interests of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the seized documents, despite the assessee's claims, had evidentiary value as they pertained to the assessee and their analysis by the AO was not controverted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the evidentiary value of seized documents and the rejection of retractions. However, it found that the CIT(A) had already reduced the profit rates applied by the AO, and the appeals by both assessee and revenue were against these reduced rates.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents have evidentiary value and were not 'dumb documents'. The AO's analysis, corroborated with various records and bank transactions, was found to be meticulous. The assessee's claim of agency-based transactions and retraction of statements were not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents had evidentiary value, and the AO's analysis and reconstruction of accounts were not flawed. The assessee's contention that the transactions were purely agency-based was not fully accepted, but the profit rates applied by the AO were found to be excessive.

The Tribunal upheld the evidentiary value of the seized documents, rejecting the contention that they were 'dumb documents'. It agreed with the AO that the Rojmel account and other digital records comprehensively documented unaccounted transactions. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's involvement in agency-based sales and noted the AO's application of different profit rates for direct sales versus facilitation transactions. The Tribunal also found no fault with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the evidentiary value of seized documents and the rejection of retracted statements.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents had evidentiary value and were not 'dumb documents' as contended by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the AO's findings regarding the existence of unaccounted transactions but noted that the CIT(A) had reduced the profit rates applied to these transactions.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents (loose papers, Rojmel, software data) had evidentiary value as they pertained to the assessee and were meticulously analyzed and corroborated by the AO. Retractions of statements were considered self-serving. The AO's approach of applying profit rates to unaccounted transactions was upheld in principle.