DHANANJAY GAJANAN VIDWANS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 3(3) PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1212/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 July 2026AY 2023-243 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the FTC claim was supported by evidence and the error in Form No. 67 was a procedural mistake. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowance of FTC if found correct.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 15,73,878/- under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act for income earned in the USA. The FTC was denied by the CPC due to an error in Form No. 67, which was not rectified by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for Foreign Tax Credit when Form No. 67 contained a procedural error, and if so, should the claim be allowed after verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Patil
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2023-24 is directed against the order dated 16.01.2026 of Addl/JCIT(A), Panaji passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of intimation order dated 29.08.2024 passed u/s.143(1) of the Act.

2.

The only issue for our consideration is denial of Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.15,73,878/- claimed u/s.90 of the Income Tax Act.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for A.Y. 2023-24 on 2 Dhanjay Gajanan Vidwans

31.07.

2023. Assessee is having income from outside India (USA) and the income is covered the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions under Article 16 between India-USA. Assessee is eligible for the Foreign Tax Credit u/s.90 of the Act. We observe that assessee has filed Form No.67 along with the return of income furnished on 31.07.2023. There is mistake in Form No.67 because the information about tax paid outside India at Rs.15,73,878/- is not mentioned under the correct column of credit claim u/s.90/90A of the Act. Revised Form No.67 is also filed before us claiming Foreign Tax Credit at Rs.15,73,878/-. We observe that CPC has denied the Foreign Tax Credit on account of incorrect Form No.67 and thereafter ld.CIT(A) did not grant any relief.

4.

We however considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the claim of assessee for Foreign Tax Credit at Rs.15,73,878/- is based on the tax deducted on the salary income through employer at USA amounting to Rs.62,63,037/- duly supported by necessary evidence, we deem it appropriate to remit back the issue to the file of ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer for necessary verification. Further, if the claim of assessee is found to be correct, then necessary Foreign Tax Credit should be allowed to the assessee in accordance with law. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

3 Dhanjay Gajanan Vidwans

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 28th day of July, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 28th July, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.07.28 12:06:00 +05'30'

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 90

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →