The Tribunal held that the assessee could raise the claim for deduction under section 54F before the appellate authorities as it was relatable to the escaped income. The Tribunal further held that the share in bungalows to be constructed under the Joint Development Agreement would qualify as investment in construction of a new residential house for the purpose of section 54F.

The Tribunal held that while BAPA is not strictly binding for transactions not covered, the margin agreed under BAPA can be applied to such transactions if the Functional, Asset, and Risk (FAR) profile is identical and no separate benchmarking was done by the TPO. The principle of consistency supports this approach.

The Tribunal held that while BAPA is not strictly binding for transactions not covered, the agreed margin serves as a reliable benchmark in the absence of separate benchmarking by the TPO and differing FAR profiles. The principle of consistency was applied.

The Tribunal held that the BAPA margin should be applied to transactions with non-US AEs not covered by the agreement, following coordinate benches' decisions in similar cases. The Tribunal found no separate benchmarking by the TPO for these transactions and no different FAR profile presented by the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide conclusive evidence for the cancellation of shipping bill No. 1475961 before the lower authorities. However, a letter from the customs agent submitted to the Tribunal confirmed that the shipping bill was purged and no shipment occurred. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that common issues were involved in the appeals and decided to dispose them of via a consolidated order. The specific grounds raised by the assessee challenge the CIT(A)'s upholding of the AO's actions regarding the validity of notices and additions made.

The tribunal noted that the notices under section 148 were issued after the prescribed dates and without proper sanction as per amended law. It also considered grounds related to the AO treating the return as non-est, invalidity of assessment orders due to lack of valid notice under Section 143(2), and improper confirmation of additions regarding long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the AO had made the assessment subject to receiving a valuation report, but failed to re-determine capital gains after receiving the report. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for re-determination.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years requires a finding of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Since the 'reasons to believe' recorded by the AO did not contain such an allegation, the jurisdiction was wrongly assumed.

The Tribunal held that an unsigned document, seized from a third party without independent corroboration, cannot be considered incriminating material to invoke section 153C. The assessment based solely on such a document is unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the seized 'Agreement of Sale' lacked evidentiary sanctity as it was unsigned by the alleged vendors (assessees) and was seized from a third party. In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence linking the assessees to the document, it could not be treated as incriminating material for invoking jurisdiction under section 153C. The assessment was consequently held to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the 'Agreement of Sale' was not incriminating material as it was unsigned by the alleged vendors and lacked any corroborative evidence linking the assessee. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. U.K. Paints Overseas Ltd., the Tribunal found that assessments initiated under section 153C without incriminating material are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the 'Agreement of Sale' lacked evidentiary sanctity as it was unsigned by the alleged vendors and not seized from the assessee's possession. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it could not be treated as incriminating material for invoking jurisdiction under section 153C. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. U.K. Paints Overseas Ltd., quashed the assessment.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee had a lackadaisical approach, the disallowance of entire expenses by the AO did not inspire confidence as the firm was not shown to be bogus. The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowance of expenses without rejecting books of accounts is not justified. The license fee payment was found to be for the relevant financial year. The addition for incentives was deleted as the amounts were already accounted for and offered to tax.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order. It held that the approval granted by the Addl.CIT/JCIT under Section 148B was mechanical and without application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid, following various High Court and Supreme Court precedents.