The Tribunal, considering the assessee's age and ill-health, condoned the 128-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found it appropriate to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the reasons provided were bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence (a lease deed dated 24.01.2011) filed by the assessee, deeming it to have a significant bearing on the issue. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision considering this additional evidence.

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal were not substantial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine on account of the delay.

SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that additions based on documents seized from a third party must be initiated under section 153C of the Act, not section 153A. Since the documents were found from a third party and handed over after the jurisdiction transfer, section 153C was mandatory for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre was without jurisdiction because the provisions for faceless assessment under Section 151A were notified after the assessment order was passed. Consequently, the assessment was quashed as null and void.

The Tribunal held that additions made based on documents seized from a third party must be processed under Section 153C of the Act. Since the assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 153A, the additions were considered invalid. The Tribunal also found that the valuer appointed for stock valuation was not appropriately qualified.

SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account and the subsequent addition by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed sales in its profit and loss account and that most suppliers had confirmed the transactions. The Tribunal found no specific defects in the assessee's books of account.

SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that additions based on documents seized from a third party can only be made under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, not under Section 153A or 143(3). The AO's jurisdiction was transferred after the documents were seized from the third party, making Section 153C applicable. The addition made on this basis was deleted.

SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for undisclosed sales, agreeing that profit should be estimated on unaccounted purchases using the GP rate. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the expense disallowance, as estimation of income already accounted for this.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence without allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it for the food and beverage provision. For other grounds, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The CIT(A) held that the AO failed to bring on record evidence connecting the credits to the assessee's income and directed the AO to grant relief for credits directly linked to the institution where the assessee served, as these could not be taxed as unexplained. The CIT(A)'s order was allowed for statistical purposes.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is an old trust and the delay in filing was due to lack of conversancy with complex provisions. The trust deed was amended to include a dissolution clause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue for a fresh hearing.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal noted that for AY 2016-17, the assessment was made u/s 144 of the Act. While acknowledging that disallowances can be made if facts warrant, even in the absence of incriminating evidence for unabated years, the Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding. The CIT(A) had already restricted the disallowance to a reasonable extent of 10%, which the Tribunal confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletions, agreeing that the so-called prior period expenses were indeed current year expenses. It also found that delayed payment surcharges and interest earned on government grants, which were refundable, were not taxable income. The tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s view on the non-taxability of interest on MP-LAD funds and the reclassification of a contractual payment as interest income.

The Tribunal held that no transfer of property had taken place within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, as there was no relinquishment of rights or substantial performance beyond obtaining permissions. Furthermore, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 added by the AO for demolition was not received in the impugned financial year.

SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal, relying on the decision in CIT vs. Oxford University Press, held that the expenditure was for repairs and renovation of an existing building and did not create a new asset or enduring benefit. The Tribunal opined that the quantum of expenditure and its enduring benefits are immaterial for determining revenue expenditure.