The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation to be bonafide and not a deliberate dilatory strategy. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals for non-compliance without providing sufficient opportunities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause and bonafide reasons. Considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders due to the assessee's failure to appear, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made based on entries in a seized document which did not explicitly mention cash payment. Furthermore, the AO did not conduct independent inquiries or obtain corroborative statements, and crucially, the assessee was not provided an opportunity for cross-examination of the person from whom the documents were seized, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely based on entries in a seized document which did not explicitly mention 'cash' payment. Furthermore, the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the person from whom the documents were seized, violating principles of natural justice. Relying on co-ordinate bench decisions and the Supreme Court ruling in Andaman Timber Industries, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of disallowance for purchases from two parties (Ground 1) was to be restored to the AO for verification due to insufficient opportunity for the AO. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(ia) (Ground 2), upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion as net purchases were below the threshold. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning the treatment of additional income as business income (Grounds 3 & 4), agreeing with the CIT(A) that the excess stock arose from regular business activities and was not unexplained investment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a government company established by the State of Uttarakhand and is eligible for exemption under section 10(26B) of the Act. The Tribunal respectfully followed a previous order of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2018-19, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.

The Tribunal held that local PWD rates should be applied instead of CPWD rates, and a deduction for self-supervision should be allowed at 15%. Applying these, the difference between the assessee's declared cost and the estimated cost became negligible.

The Tribunal held that State PWD rates should be applied instead of CPWD rates, and a deduction for self-supervision should be allowed at 15%. After applying these adjustments, the difference in construction cost became negligible, falling within the tolerance limit.

The Tribunal directed that the addition on account of unexplained bank credits be restricted to 8% profit. The issue of unexplained investment was restored to the AO for re-examination. The addition on account of deemed rental income was deleted. The addition for difference in receipts was also deleted to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the long-term capital gains exemption claim. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were considered justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence, such as contract notes and demat account details, to substantiate the claim of long-term capital gains exemption. Consequently, the AO's additions were deemed justified, and the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the matter was not interfered with.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's estimation of gross on-money receipt was debatable, the unexplained unsecured loans brought into the books of account, which were admitted to be generated from such on-money receipts, could not be ignored. The CIT(A)'s action of restricting the addition to the amount of unsecured loans was found to be correct.

The Tribunal held that while the gross 'on-money' receipt could not be taxed entirely, the unexplained unsecured loans brought into the books, as admitted by the partners, could not be ignored. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the extent of unexplained unsecured loans was considered justified.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's estimation of gross on-money receipts was high, the CIT(A) correctly restricted the addition by considering the profit embedded in on-money receipts and unexplained unsecured loans introduced into the books. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings for both assessment years.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of documents or digital data seized from third parties, without any corroborative evidence found from the assessee's premises, cannot be sustained. Reliance on statements of third parties without allowing cross-examination was also deemed improper. Valuation reports obtained from private individuals and not from the DVO, and reports pertaining to commercial property used for residential property estimations, were also found to have no legal sanctity.

The Tribunal held that the additions for unaccounted plot/SCO sales and unexplained expenditure were to be deleted, as similar issues for the prior year were decided in favor of the assessee and no incriminating material was found. The addition for unaccounted receipts from M/s RIPSS was deleted due to the unsigned nature of the MOU and lack of evidence. The addition for unexplained expenditure on villas was deleted due to lack of specific details and mention of VAT instead of GST.