MAHUA BAGCHI,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 61, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 July 2023AY 2017-20184 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the foreign tax credit cannot be denied solely due to the technicality of delayed filing of Form-67. The assessee is entitled to the foreign tax credit under Section 90 of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed foreign tax relief of Rs. 17,72,470/- for tax deducted in the UK. However, Form-67 was filed with a significant delay of two and a half years after the due date for filing the return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether foreign tax credit can be denied for delayed filing of Form-67, despite the tax being deducted in a foreign country under a DTAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 154,Section 143(3),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI RAJPAL YADAV & SRI RAJESH KUMAR

order

: July 19th, 2023 ORDER

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18.

I.T.A. No.: 3/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mahua Bagchi.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') wherein the claim of foreign tax relief amounting to Rs. 17,72,470/- was not allowed which was claimed u/s 90/90A of the Act.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. since 1999 and was transferred to UK in May, 2008 and worked in UK till September, 2020. Thereafter the assessee was again transferred to India. The assessee got benefits from the employer in the form of equity shares granted to her under Employee Stock Option Plan (in short ‘ESOP’) and restricted stock. These stocks got vested over a period of four years if the assessee worked for the said employer company under ESOP. The profit which goes to the assessee would be determined on the basis of grant price of $19.66 and the sale price. Accordingly, the tax was deducted in UK amounting to Rs. 17,72,470/- which was claimed by the assessee as foreign tax u/s 90 of the Act. However, Form-67 as required to be filed on or before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act was not filed. The assessee filed the return of income after the due date and also filed Form-67 with the delay of two and a half years from the date of filing return. The AO CPC passed the order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 28.03.2019 and the claim was allowed in respect of foreign tax. However, when the assessee filed the form 67 in respect of foreign tax deducted, the AO by passing order u/s 154 of the Act

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →