The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer considered incorrect facts regarding the cash deposits. As the actual cash deposit related to the assessee was only Rs. 38,10,000/-, the reassessment notice issued beyond three years was time-barred and invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions, routed through a recognized stock exchange and banking channels. In the absence of specific evidence linking the assessee to price rigging or accommodation entries, the addition under section 69A was not justified. The Tribunal directed that the profit be treated as short-term capital gain under section 111A.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions, which were routed through recognized exchanges and banking channels. Since no specific evidence of price rigging or accommodation entry was brought against the assessee, the addition under section 69A was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000, citing the medical condition of the Managing Partner and the interest of justice. The Tribunal found the ad-hoc disallowance by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) to be arbitrary and unjustified. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to examine each expenditure claim independently.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It held that the Development Agreement-cum-GPA, which granted only a license for construction and did not transfer ownership or substantial possession, did not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, no capital gains tax was leviable.

The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, as amended effective from April 1, 2018, mandates that deduction under Chapter VI-A, including Section 80P, is allowable only if the return of income is filed by the due date specified under Section 139(1). Reliance was placed on the Madras High Court judgment in Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/-, due to the bonafide and unavoidable circumstances explained by the assessee. The Tribunal also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additional grounds challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) were legal in nature and therefore admissible. Following the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Anita Garg vs. ITO and other co-ordinate benches, it was held that the notice issued without specifying the scope of scrutiny as per CBDT instructions is invalid and vitiates the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the fact that a refund cheque from the jeweller, arising from the same transaction, was deposited in the assessee's bank account establishes a direct nexus between the assessee and the transaction. Therefore, the cash payment could not be considered as not pertaining to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently failed to provide necessary documentation or cooperate with the tax authorities at all stages. Despite multiple opportunities and a previous remand by the Tribunal, the assessee did not present its case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the CIT(A) and upheld them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a non-compliant assessee and had failed to produce evidence or substantiate claims at any stage of the proceedings. Despite opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal, including a remand by the Tribunal in the first round, the assessee did not cooperate. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) who had dealt with the issues elaborately and passed reasoned orders.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's persistent non-compliance and lack of cooperation across all levels of assessment and appeal. Given the consistent failure to provide evidence or appear, and the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed reasoned orders based on available material, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower appellate authority's decisions. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and failure to produce evidence or cooperate with the proceedings at all levels. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had dealt with the issues elaborately and passed reasoned orders. Since the assessee failed to discharge its burden of proof and provide any material to rebut the findings, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently failed to avail the opportunities provided at various stages of the proceedings and did not discharge its burden of proof. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and upheld them.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and failure to provide evidence at all stages of the proceedings. The Managing Director had accepted additions in the first round before the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) had elaborately dealt with the issues and passed reasoned orders based on available material.

The Tribunal held that for the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill in AY 2016-17, the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the core issue regarding the method of goodwill computation. For AY 2020-21, the issue of depreciation on goodwill was remitted back to the CIT(A). For other additions in AY 2020-21, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to call for a remand report when admitting additional evidence, except for ESOP provision where no additional evidence was filed. Consequently, most issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2016-17, the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the core issue regarding the method of goodwill computation, and thus the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without a remand report in most cases, restoring them for re-adjudication. However, one ground concerning ESOP provision was dismissed.