AMAR RAMESHKUMAR BHALODIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 641/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 October 2026AY 2022-233 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) should not be denied merely due to the belated filing of Form No. 67, provided the substantive conditions for claiming such credit under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) are otherwise satisfied. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the foreign income and provided documentary evidence of foreign tax payments. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Hyderabad, in Mekala Rakesh Reddy v. DCIT, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the assessee's claim of Rs. 30,12,580/-. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Amar Rameshkumar Bhalodia, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 on November 5, 2022, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,40,20,140/- and claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 30,12,580/- under section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return and denied the FTC claim because Form No. 67 was filed belatedly. The assessee's application under section 154 of the Act for rectification was rejected. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee is now before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee's claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) can be denied solely on the ground of belated filing of Form No. 67, despite the income being disclosed and foreign taxes paid, under Section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the income earned in the USA was duly disclosed, and taxes were paid there. Documentary evidence of foreign tax payment was provided. The assessee contended that a delay in filing Form No. 67 should not lead to the denial of FTC, relying on the decision in Makala Rakesh Reddy v. DCIT (2025) 181 taxmann.com 688. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities, which denied the FTC claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 154,Section 250,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 13/10/2026Pronounced: 15/10/2026

Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 17.04.2026, which in turn arises out of an order passed by assessing officer u/s. 154 of the Ac

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 →