CHINTAGINJALA MALLIKARJUNA SIVAPRASAD,ANANTHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

ITA 839/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 September 2026AY 2023-202420 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) cannot be denied merely because of a delay in filing Form-67. The Tribunal noted that the fact of payment of foreign tax was not in dispute. It referred to a series of its own decisions, including Smt. Sonali Verma, Shri Sridharan Venkatanarayanan, and Shri Suresh Kumar Vobbilisetty, which consistently held that denial of FTC solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form-67 is not justified, especially when the form was available before the processing authority. The Tribunal also cited the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. CIT for the principle of following precedents in favour of the assessee in case of divergent views. The Tribunal observed that Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules has been amended to allow filing of Form-67 on or before the end of the Assessment Year, addressing this anomaly. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the FTC claim to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chintaginjala Mallikarjuna Sivaprasad, filed an appeal against the order dated 15.01.2026 of the learned Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru, for the assessment year 2023-2024. The dispute concerns the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) amounting to Rs. 7,76,720. The FTC was disallowed by the CPC during the processing of the return under section 143(1) and subsequently by a rectification order under section 154, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The primary reason for denial was the assessee's failure to file Form-67 before the due date for filing the income tax return. The assessee claims to have paid foreign taxes on income earned abroad and sought credit for these taxes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Authorities below were justified in disallowing the foreign tax credit of Rs. 7,76,720, contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Sweden, by solely relying on the non-filing of Form-67 before the due date of filing the return of income? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that filing Form-67 before the due date is a procedural requirement, and the claim for FTC should not be denied due to a delay in its filing. They contended that as per Section 90 read with Article 24 of the Indo-Swedish DTAA, FTC should be allowed without procedural impediments. The assessee relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT, and orders of the ITAT Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam Benches in similar cases. Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below, stating that the CIT(A) held that the power to condone the delay in filing Form-67 is not vested with the appellate authority as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2017, and the assessee should have sought condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 91,Section 139(1),Section 139(5),Section 119(2)(b),Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Pronounced: 23.09.2026

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 15.01.2026 of the learned Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru, for the assessment year 2023-2024. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The impugned order of the learned Authorities below in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 90

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →