← All Phrases

“double taxation”

MiscellaneousGeneralGeneral4,703 judgments

The decision most relied on for double taxation is DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV (382 ITR 114), cited in 325 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on double taxation

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT
239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court
243
citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
86 ITD 791 · 2003 · ITAT
154
citing judgments

For services to qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' or 'Fees for Included Services' under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), they must 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or processes to the recipient, enabling them to apply such expertise independently.

CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust
144 ITR 146 · 1983 · High Court
124
citing judgments

Sections 4 and 5 of the Income Tax Act, which define total income and chargeability, are subject to Section 90, meaning that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the Act's provisions in case of a conflict.

Assessing Officer (International Taxation) v. Nestle SA
458 ITR 756 · 2023 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

The benefit of a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is available only upon notification by the Government. A notification under section 90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition for giving effect to a DTAA or any protocol that alters existing law.

Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO
135 Taxmann.com 358 · 2022 · ITAT
109
citing judgments

The filing of Form 67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is a directory requirement, not mandatory. Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC due to delay in filing this form. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override domestic law.

CIT v. Havells India Ltd.
352 ITR 376 · 2013 · High Court
97
citing judgments

For royalty income, especially in the context of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA), the 'source of income' is the determinative factor for taxability, rather than merely the 'source of receipt'.

Judgments citing double taxation

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai

ITA 2273/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

India in the hands of such non-residents in terms of the provisions of the Act read with the applicable articles of the corresponding Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (for short ‘DTAA’) between India and the country of tax resident of the search non-resident(s) as (a) Fee for Technical/Included ... permits the Government of India to enter into agreement with the government of foreign country, inter alia, for avoidance of double taxation of income [referred to as ‘Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement’ or ‘DTAA’]. Section 90(2) of the Act provides that the provisions of the DTAA shall apply

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai

ITA 2272/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

India in the hands of such non-residents in terms of the provisions of the Act read with the applicable articles of the corresponding Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (for short ‘DTAA’) between India and the country of tax resident of the search non-resident(s) as (a) Fee for Technical/Included

Ram Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

sale proceeds credited in the profit & loss account hence the I.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta addition thereof amounts to double taxation of same income which is not permissible under the law. In Dewas Soya Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 336/Ind/2012), the Indore Bench of the ITAT ... held that the addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year once as sales credited to profit and loss account and secondly as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 1.9 In Shree Sanand Textiles Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1166/Ahd/2014

Anisha Karamchandani, Neemuch vs. ITO, Neemuch

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-

ITA 242/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Boradanisha Karamchandani, Income Tax Officer, 137, Khushbu, Neemuch Vs. Jawahar Nagar, Neemuch (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpk5859J Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

fact that the assessed had already reported the income of Rs. 1,91,848 in her original return of income filed thereby leading to double taxation 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition

Manisha Sharma, Delhi vs. Ward 43(7), Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the

ITA 970/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2017-18

Section 145(3)Section 68

that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in respect of income from a source which has already been taxed which would amount to double taxation. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, or amend any grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that

Polo Computers & Softwares Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1357/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153CSection 153D

adopted by revenue is inconsistent and contradictory. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the addition tantamounts to double taxation and is therefore, not permissible. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the disallowance of expenditure is factually

Polo Computers & Softwares Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-13, Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1356/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153CSection 153D

adopted by revenue is inconsistent and contradictory. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the addition tantamounts to double taxation and is therefore, not permissible. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the disallowance of expenditure is factually

Polo Computers & Softwares Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-13, Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1355/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153CSection 153D

adopted by revenue is inconsistent and contradictory. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the addition tantamounts to double taxation and is therefore, not permissible. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the disallowance of expenditure is factually

Lks Bullion (Import and Export) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 382/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.382/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 L.K.S. Bullion (Import & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Export) Pvt.Ltd. Ward-2(1)(3) 368, Lks House, Ahmedabad – 380 014 V/S. Khetarpal-Ni-Pole Manek Chowk Ahmedabad -380 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 7369 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/08/2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 18/12/2017 By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income L.K.S. Bullion (Import & Export) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Gujarat High Court held that income already offered for taxation cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credit, as it would amount to double taxation. We further note that the AO did not reject the books of accounts or question the quantitative details of the stock. We also observe that

Seemakurti Sarada, Rajam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

Therefore, the Ld. AR pleaded that the addition of Rs. 3,17,980/- is not warranted as the same amounts to double taxation and therefore the addition of Rs. 3,17,980/- may kindly be deleted. 5 6. On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative [“Ld. DR”] heavily relied

Gupta Enterprises, Eluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/VIZ/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Gupta Enterprises V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1 Eastern St., Near Venkanna Cheruvu Eluru-534002 Eluru – 534001, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan :Aacfg6508R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

A.Y.2011-12. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that not granting the telescoping benefit would amount to double taxation of sales amount of Rs.1,36,80,000 once in A.Y.2010-11 and again in A.Y.2011-12. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time

Debraj Sahoo, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 44, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

tire customers was already admitted as income and if tire cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against tire principles of taxation. It is also on record that tire assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1218/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1218/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit Shri Amit Kumar Kothari बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), New No.35 To 41 Old No.28 Chennai. Evk Sampath Salai, Vepery, Vs. Chennai-600 007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adypa-1209-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkat Raman (Ca)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkat Raman (CA)- Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 69

peak credit is determined as income for this AY. Hence, the addition made towards interest income and misc. receipts would not amount to double taxation. As is evident, the revenue assails the impugned order which has granted certain relief to the assessee while assessing the income on the basis

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

reduced from the Income. d. non-allowance of deduction on account of withdrawal of Interest u/s. 244A of the Act will amount to double taxation. 3. The Appellant prays that the Appellant be allowed a deduction of Rs. 12,95,87,075/- being withdrawal of interest u/s. 244A

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 4056/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

reduced from the Income. d. non-allowance of deduction on account of withdrawal of Interest u/s. 244A of the Act will amount to double taxation. 3. The Appellant prays that the Appellant be allowed a deduction of Rs. 12,95,87,075/- being withdrawal of interest u/s. 244A

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Education Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 2/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

taxed in the hands of the assessee. It is noted that it is not a case of taxation of salary in wrong hands or double taxation. It is a case where unreasonable and undue benefit has been given to persons specified u/s 13(3) of the Act. There ... question of double taxation. 15. Further, the assessee is not right in stating that it is the responsibility of the department to prove the reasonableness of salary paid to "specified persons". On the contrary, it is for the assessee to prove the same in order to be eligible for claiming

Assisstant Commissoner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Exemption, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Educational Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 12/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

taxed in the hands of the assessee. It is noted that it is not a case of taxation of salary in wrong hands or double taxation. It is a case where unreasonable and undue benefit has been given to persons specified u/s 13(3) of the Act. There ... question of double taxation. 15. Further, the assessee is not right in stating that it is the responsibility of the department to prove the reasonableness of salary paid to "specified persons". On the contrary, it is for the assessee to prove the same in order to be eligible for claiming

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Exemption, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Educational Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 11/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

taxed in the hands of the assessee. It is noted that it is not a case of taxation of salary in wrong hands or double taxation. It is a case where unreasonable and undue benefit has been given to persons specified u/s 13(3) of the Act. There ... question of double taxation. 15. Further, the assessee is not right in stating that it is the responsibility of the department to prove the reasonableness of salary paid to "specified persons". On the contrary, it is for the assessee to prove the same in order to be eligible for claiming

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Exemption, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Educational Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 10/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

taxed in the hands of the assessee. It is noted that it is not a case of taxation of salary in wrong hands or double taxation. It is a case where unreasonable and undue benefit has been given to persons specified u/s 13(3) of the Act. There ... question of double taxation. 15. Further, the assessee is not right in stating that it is the responsibility of the department to prove the reasonableness of salary paid to "specified persons". On the contrary, it is for the assessee to prove the same in order to be eligible for claiming

Equitable Marketing Association, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata.

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1226/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54D

Gain at Rs.47,83,928/-, in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, such computation has resulted in double taxation to the tune of Rs. 47,83,928/-, 5. That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in levying/charging interest