आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण’ ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कु मार गिरि, न्यागयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री जगदीश, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष।

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1115/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Prakash Raman, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pent House No.602, 6^th Floor, (International Taxation), Pincode@55, Vasant Vihar Road, Ward-2(1), TP-1, Opp. To Darshanam Chennai.

Splendora, Bhayli, Vadodara, Gujarat-391 410.

[PAN:AAPPP0380F]

( /Appellant) ( /Respondent)

अपीलार्थी प्रत्यर्थी

अपीलार्थी की ओर से

/ Appellant by : Mr.Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, C.A (Virtual).

प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से

/Respondent by : Mrs. R.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [‘CIT(A)’ in short], Chennai-16 dated 10.10.2024 for AY-2019-20.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. Re.: Taxability of salary income earned outside India: 1.1 The CIT(A)

erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer ("AO") in taxing

in India the salary income to the extent of Rs. 1,31,04,562/- which has accrued outside India on account of the services being rendered in United States of America ['USA'].

1.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of his case and the law prevailing on the subject, the CIT(A) / AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant is admittedly a non-resident for the year under consideration and consequently as per the provisions of section 5 read with sections 9 and 15 of the Act only salary income for services rendered in India should be taxable in India.

1.3 The Appellant submits that the AO be directed to delete the addition so made to the salary income and recompute its total income and tax thereon accordingly.

Without prejudice to the above, 2. Re.: Denial of relief u/s. 90 of the Act vis-à-vis non granting the benefit of Article 16(1) of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ['DTAA']

between India and USA:

2.1 The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in denying the relief u/s. 90 by not granting the benefit under Article 16(1) of the India - USA DTAA thereby making an addition of Rs. 1,31,04,562/- to the returned income.

2.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and laws prevailing on the subject, the CIT(A) / AO while denying the benefits under the India - USA DTAA have erred in ignoring the fact that the Appellant was a resident of USA and thus was eligible to claim benefits under the said DTAA.

2.3 The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in denying the benefit of the India - USA DTAA merely on the pretext that the Appellant had failed to furnish a tax residency certificate ['TRC'] issued by the Tax Revenue authorities of United States of America; without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has been able to obtain the TRC as issued by the Tax Revenue authorities of the United States of America.

2.4 The Appellant submits that the AO be directed to grant the relief u/s. 90 vis-à-vis the benefit of Article 16 of the India - USA DTAA thereby the addition made to salary income of Rs. 1,31,04,562 be deleted and recompute his total income and tax thereon.

3. Re.: Erroneous levy of interest u/s. 234B of the Act:

3.1 The AO has erred in levying interest u/s. 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3.2 The Appellant submits that consideringthe facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, interest has been levied u/s. 234B and hence the action of the AO in this regard is incorrect, erroneous and not in accordance with the law.

3.3 The Appellant submits that the AO be directed to delete the interest u/s. 234B so levied and to re-compute its tax liability accordingly.

Re.: General