Kapil Dev Ranwan Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Last updated: 05 December 2020

Save Share

Quick Summary

This case involves an appeal by Kapil Dev Ranwan against an order from the CIT(A) regarding his 2012-13 assessment year. The core issue is the disallowance of foreign tax credit claimed under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The assessee argues that the tax authorities wrongly ignored the DTAA provisions, incorrectly calculated his stay in the UK, and failed to acknowledge the applicability of certain DTAA articles.

Court :
ITAT New Delhi

Brief :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 02/11/2016 passed by CIT(A)- Ghaziabad, for Assessment Year 2012-13.

Citation :
I.T.A. No. 875/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 875/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2012-13)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Kapil Dev Ranwan
A-31, Bhaleri Road
Saink Basti, Charu
Rajasthan
ADJPR6671E
(APPELLANT)

DCIT
Circle-1, Room NO. 201, 2nd
Floor, ITO, CGO Complex-1,
Hapur Chungi
Ghaziabad
(RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv
Respondent by Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT
Date of Hearing 29.10.2020
Date of Pronouncement 05.11.2020

ORDER

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 02/11/2016 passed by CIT(A)- Ghaziabad, for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“1. That Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ghaziabad (‘AO’) / CIT(A) have grossly erred in facts and law in ignoring the provisions of India-United Kingdom (‘UK’) DTAA and disallowing the foreign tax credit claimed under Article 24 of India- UK DTAA read with Section 90 of the Act amounting to Rs 4,075,122.

2. That CIT(A) has grossly erred in facts in stating that the aggregate stay in UK for the said previous year is less than 183 days disregarding the fact that the Appellant stayed in UK for 241 days.

3. That AO/ CIT(A) have grossly erred in facts and law in concluding that the Appellant should have availed exemption from tax in UK under Article 16(2) of the India-UK DTAA ignoring the fact that Article 16(2) is not at all applicable in UK.

4. That AO/ CIT(A) have erred in facts and law in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act amounting to Rs 530,352 and Rs 54,526 respectively on the aforesaid additions made to the total tax liability of the Appellant.

5. That CIT(A) has erred in facts in stating that the Appellant has failed to reconcile the double taxation of income in India and UK for the purpose of Article 24(2) of the India-UK DTAA disregarding the reconciliation, computation of foreign tax credit and proof of UK taxes paid placed on records during appellate proceedings.”

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The main issue was the disallowance of foreign tax credit claimed by the appellant under Article 24 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The appellant argued that the authorities ignored the India-UK DTAA, miscalculated his stay in the UK (claiming 241 days vs. the authority's less than 183 days), wrongly stated that Article 16(2) of the DTAA was applicable, and erred in levying interest under Sections 234B and 234C.

Yes, the appellant stated that he had provided reconciliation, computation of foreign tax credit, and proof of UK taxes paid during the appellate proceedings.

The assessment year in question was 2012-13.