ITAT Panaji Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee, not being born in Goa and having no prior connection to Portuguese territory, could not claim to be governed by the Portuguese civil code. Therefore, the benefit of Section 5A was not available.

The Tribunal held that the addition of unpaid advances/deposits under Section 28(iv) was not sustainable as these represented cash/money and not a benefit or perquisite other than money, as per Supreme Court's ruling. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under the proviso to section 201(1) as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, which should be given retrospective effect to remove an anomaly. The interest under section 201(1A) was directed to be recomputed.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's exercise of powers under Section 263 was bad in law. It found that the AO's view was not erroneous and that the Pr. CIT had not established a basis for invoking revisionary powers, especially when the assessee had disclosed relevant information.

The Tribunal held that the addition of unpaid advances/deposits under Section 28(iv) was not sustainable as these represented cash/money and not a benefit or perquisite other than money, as per Supreme Court's ruling. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.