MADAN KUMAR SIVINIGARI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 is directory, not mandatory. Denial of Foreign Tax Credit solely for a procedural lapse like delayed filing of Form 67 defeats the purpose of relief from double taxation.
What were the facts?
The assessee, employed by Tech Mahindra Ltd., paid taxes in the UK on salary earned from October 2019 to March 2020. The assessee claimed credit for these UK taxes in their Indian return of income.
What were the issues?
Whether non-filing of Form 67 before the due date for filing the return of income is fatal to the claim for Foreign Tax Credit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT914 citing125 Taxmann.com 42 · 2021 · SC · Read judgment
- Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan691 citing263 ITR 706 · 2003 · SC · Read judgment
- GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT663 citing193 Taxmann 234 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Eli Lilly & Co.(India) Pvt. Ltd.172 citing178 Taxmann 505 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd.107 citing317 ITR 207 · 2009 · HC
- Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others87 citing17 SCC 117 · 2008 · SC
- CIT v. Axis Computers (India) (P.) Ltd.49 citing178 Taxmann 143 · 2009 · HC
- CIT-II v. Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd.38 citing178 Taxmann 429 · 2009 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A), Thane dated 19/11/2024 in ITA No. ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2024-25/1070462006(1) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the claim of foreign tax credit. 2.1 The necessary facts are that the assessee is an individual and employed with the company, namely Tech Mahindra Ltd. The assessee during the year under consideration also received salary from Tech Mahindra Ltd -UK from October 2019 to March 2020 on which he paid taxes in UK for Rs. 1,52,019/- only. Accordingly
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.
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
- Amar Rameshkumar Bhalodia, Rajkot vs The ACIT, Circle-1(1), RajkotITA 641/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Fireeye Ireland Limited, Ireland vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITITA 1431/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- Archana Gupta, New Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3123/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Shishir Dhatwalia, Hamirpur vs Circle 1(1) Jalpaiguri, JalpaiguriITA 2583/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Raghava Gupta Valiveti, Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3)(4), BangaloreITA 2744/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026