MARIA LOURDERS ALMAZAN KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6752/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 April 2025AY 2020-21Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by decisions of Coordinate Benches. The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal based on these prior rulings, which found the requirement of filing Form No. 67 to be directory.

What were the facts?

The appellant argued that filing Form No. 67 for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is directory and not mandatory. The issue was whether the CPC's action of making an addition u/s. 143(1) and a rectification order u/s. 154, denying FTC, was justified without proper intimation and reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether filing of Form No. 67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit is mandatory or directory, and if denial of FTC without proper intimation is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 90,Section 90A,Section 128(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Gupta
Pronounced: 17/04/2025

2. The Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) erred in upholding the rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Act by CPC, thereby denying the Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 4,78,705/- u/s. 90/90A of the Act..

3.

The Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) has erred in failing to consider the appellant's contention that no reasons were provided to the appellant in the intimation issued u/s. 143(1), nor in the rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is incumbent on the revenue authorities to communicate the rationale for such denial of credit for taxes.

2.

During the appeal proceedings before the ITAT, Ld. AR of the appellant has argued that filing of Form No. 67 to claim Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is only directory in nature and not mandatory, even though the word used in 2 Maria Lourdes Almazan Khan Rule 128(9) is “shall”. For this proposition, the Ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in Gursharan Kaur Vs. ITO and in Rohan Hattangadi order dated 2.12.2022 etc. and filed copies of orders before the Bench.

3. Ld. DR relied on the orders of CPC and Ld. CIT(A).

4.

After perusing the orders of the lower authorities and copies of the ITAT Orders filed by the Ld. AR of the appellant, it is decided to allow the appeal of the appellant as the issue is covered by the decisions of Coordinate Benches of Mumbai ITAT, as mentioned in para 2 of this order.

5.

The appeal of appellant is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/04/2025.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →