The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals. The learned DR had no objection to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the present appeals. The revenue did not object to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal solely on limitation without examining the merits. Following a precedent, the tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a final opportunity to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be heard. Since the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without substantial adjudication on merits, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require an assessee to be heard. Given that ex-parte orders were passed without a substantial adjudication on merits, the matters should be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order passed without substantial adjudication on merits violates principles of natural justice. Following precedent, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, following precedents, held that the principles of natural justice require a proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for denovo adjudication with a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require affording a final opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that ex-parte orders were passed due to non-compliance by the assessee, despite opportunities granted. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require a proper adjudication and set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases was made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee, who was a partner in the firm that allegedly made the purchases. The Tribunal found no justification for taxing these purchases solely in the hands of the assessee on a protective basis, especially when the firm itself was involved and the assessee became its proprietor only after dissolution. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided evidence of purchase through banking channels, reflected in demat accounts, and sale through a recognized stock exchange with STT payment. The AO's addition was based on general investigation reports about penny stocks, and the CIT(A) had confirmed this without specific evidence linking the assessee to manipulation. The Tribunal found that the burden of proof was not discharged by the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was eligible for the beneficial DTAA rate, it failed to produce the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) and Form 10F for the relevant period. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the TDS-AO to provide another opportunity to the assessee to submit the required documents.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were bad in law due to a fundamental legal infirmity. The reopening was based on generalized information without specifying the exact nature of income escaping assessment and lacked independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that once the source of funds in the bank account is undisputed, additions cannot be made solely on the ground of cash withdrawals, especially when they are for business distribution. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's rural nature and lack of technical expertise. The addition under Section 69C was deleted, but the interest income ground was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, preventing the assessee from appearing before the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the business loss discrepancy was a clerical error and ordered its deletion. Regarding the cost of improvement, the Tribunal found that while some payment evidence was lacking, the fact of encroachment and the necessity of compensation payments were established. The CIT-DR examined the evidence and did not dispute the justification for payments.

The Tribunal held that TDS income and credit must be considered in the hands of the same person. Since the TDS was made on sales by agriculturists/farmers, not the assessee's own sales, the TDS was wrongly deducted in the assessee's PAN, and credit could not be claimed.