The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the nexus between the 'loan against property' and the construction of the house property before the lower authorities. However, considering the assessee's explanation regarding non-representation before the lower authorities due to advocate's email issues, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT's concerns regarding safety and legal compliance for running a school were justified, the appellant was given a very short period (10 days) to furnish the required documents. Therefore, the Tribunal restored both appeals back to the CIT (Exemption) to grant the appellant an opportunity to produce the necessary details within 120 days.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT's concerns about compliance with building and safety regulations for operating a school were valid, the appellant was given a very short period (10 days) to submit the required documents. Therefore, the Tribunal restored both appeals back to the CIT (Exemption).

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) failed to follow the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act by rejecting the applications without providing a proper opportunity for hearing and by not exercising independent judgment. The religious nature of objectives, in itself, does not disqualify a trust for registration under Section 12AB.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to provide the appellant with an opportunity for a hearing before relying on the Assessing Officer's report and did not apply independent judgment. The rejection of registration under Section 12AB violated principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act.

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay, as the assessee was genuinely unaware of the proceedings due to communication errors. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal emphasized preferring substantial justice over technicalities. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the Memorandum of Appeal and Grounds of Appeal were not signed by the appellant, which is a requirement as per section 140 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal, agreeing with the AO's ex-parte assessment due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of being a senior citizen and the failure to represent the case before lower authorities, decided to grant one more opportunity.

The assessee submitted a memo stating they no longer wished to pursue the appeals. In view of this submission, the Tribunal treated both appeals as withdrawn.

The assessee, through their counsel, submitted a memo stating they did not wish to pursue the appeals. Consequently, the tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) confirmed the protective additions without ascertaining whether substantive additions were made in the hands of the cooperative society or the assessee, and without providing clear findings. The Tribunal also noted procedural defects including notices sent to the assessee's email when physical service was preferred.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to ascertain in whose hands the income was taxable and whether substantive additions were made elsewhere. The non-compliance by the assessee was due to emails going to spam and a physical notice was only served later. The Tribunal also noted the Assessing Officer's lack of clarity on substantive additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable as it did not ascertain the merits of the additions, particularly whether substantive additions were made elsewhere. The Tribunal also noted issues with notice delivery and the assessee's lack of proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT's order did not discuss the details submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the CIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT, attributing the oversight to busy schedules during the audit and return filing period. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT's order did not discuss the merits of the application details provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's persistent failure to appear before or provide submissions to the lower authorities despite numerous opportunities. The appeals were filed before the Tribunal with explanations for non-compliance, but the fundamental lack of cooperation with the AO and CIT(A) was a significant factor.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to appear before the AO and the CIT(A) and did not provide necessary documentation or explanations. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the assessee did not present their case effectively. The appeals were filed before the Tribunal after the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for both assessment years due to the assessee's lack of cooperation.