SHRI SARTH KUMAR SEKKANOR MURUGESAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the issue of FTC is covered by the Madras High Court's decision in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy, which held that filing Form 67 under Rule 128 is directory, not mandatory. Therefore, the AO was directed to grant the FTC.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed foreign tax credit (FTC) of Rs. 1,03,900/- for AY 2021-22. The CPC initially disallowed the claim in the intimation under section 143(1) and later a rectification order under section 154 also denied the credit. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of foreign tax credit is justified when the filing of Form 67 was belated, considering the High Court ruling that Rule 128 is directory?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT50 citing460 ITR 615 · 2024 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai for the assessment year 2021-22.
The assessee raised 1 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is Shri Sarth Kumar Sekkanor Murugesan Shri Sarth Kumar Sekkanor Murugesan justified in confirming the disallowance made by the Assess justified in confirming the disallowance made by the Assess justified in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards foreign tax credit claimed at towards foreign tax credit claimed at Rs.1,03,900/- under section 90 under section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] in the facts and ["Act" in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case. circumstances of the case.
3. We note that the assessee file We note that the assessee filed his return of income for AY 20 d his return of income for AY 2021- 22 after claiming foreign tax credit of after claiming foreign tax credit of Rs.1,03,900/-. The . The CPC passed intimation under section 143(1) section 143(1) of the Act dated of the Act dated 22.03.2022 by disallowing the claim of foreign tax credit. disallowing the claim of foreign tax credit. Subsequent rectification Subsequent rectification order u/s.154 dated 08.04.2023 was passed. However, AO denied the order u/s.154 dated 08.04.2023 was passed. However, AO denied the order u/s.154 dated 08.04.2023 was passed. However, AO denied the foreign tax credit claimed at foreign tax credit claimed at Rs.1,03,900/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal e appeal on merits.
The ld. AR for the assessee for the assessee submits that the issue of foreign tax the issue of foreign tax credit is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High credit is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High credit is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (WP No. 5834 of 2022 Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (WP No. 5834 of 2022 Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (WP No. 5834 of 2022 & ors. Dated 06.10.2023 [460 & ors. Dated 06.10.2023 [460 ITR 615 (Madras). Hence, Hence, the ld. AR prayed for allowing the ground raised by the assessee. prayed for allowing the ground raised by the assessee. prayed for allowing the ground raised by the assessee.
The ld. DR Mr.ARV Sreenivasan Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT relied on the order of the ld. CIT relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on Heard both the parties and perused the material available on Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, record. In this case, the assessee claimed FTC of the assessee claimed FTC of Rs.1,03,900/- under section 90 of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was of the Act. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) section 143(1) of the Act by denying the claim of FTC by denying the claim of FTC Shri Sarth Kumar Sekkanor Murugesan Shri Sarth Kumar Sekkanor Murugesan on account of the assessee filed Form 67 belatedly. the assessee filed Form 67 belatedly. the assessee filed Form 67 belatedly. Subsequent rectification order u/s.154 dated 08.04.2023 was passed denying the rectification order u/s.154 dated 08.04.2023 was passed denying the rectification order u/s.154 dated 08.04.2023 was passed denying the Foreign tax credit. We e find that the issue is covered by the find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court o the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Duraiswamy f Madras in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (WP No. 5834 of 2022 & ors. Dated 06.10.2023 [460 Kumaraswamy (WP No. 5834 of 2022 & ors. Dated 06.10.2023 [460 Kumaraswamy (WP No. 5834 of 2022 & ors. Dated 06.10.2023 [460 ITR 615 (Madras), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held that filing ITR 615 (Madras), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held that filing ITR 615 (Madras), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held that filing of aforesaid form in terms of Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The of aforesaid form in terms of Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The of aforesaid form in terms of Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the Act and it the implementation of the provisions of the Act and it the implementation of the provisions of the Act and it will always be directory in nature and decided the issue in favour of will always be directory in nature and decided the issue in favour of will always be directory in nature and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Under the above facts and circumstances, we direct the the assessee. Under the above facts and circumstances, we direct the the assessee. Under the above facts and circumstances, we direct the Assessing Officer to Assessing Officer to give foreign tax credit in accordance wi foreign tax credit in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 22nd day of December, 2025 at Chennai. Order pronounced on 5 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/ (मनु कुमार कुमार िग�र) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) ) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (MANU KUMAR GIRI MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &याियक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे&नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 22nd December, 2025. ember, 2025. EDN, Sr. PS Shri Sarth Kumar Sekkanor Murugesan Shri Sarth Kumar Sekkanor Murugesan 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड#फाईल/GF
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Vivek Tiwari, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle 3, SuriKolkata16 Jun 2025Allowed
Also relies on Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form-67 is directory in nature, not mandatory, and that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is eligib...
- Vipul Parimal Thakore, Mumbai vs ADIT, CPC, BengaluruMumbai19 Feb 2024Allowed
Also relies on Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory, and that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override domestic law. Therefore, the denial of FTC solely on the gro...
- Mr John Arunkumar Diaz, Mumbai vs DCIT 19 (1), MumbaiMumbai15 Feb 2024Allowed
Also relies on Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement. The provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override domestic law, and FTC cannot be denied for mere procedural delay...
- Amith Vishnav Gudimella, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-12(1), HyderabadHyderabad6 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form-67 is a procedural lapse and should not deny the substantive relief of FTC. The limitation under Rule 128(9) is directory, not mandatory.
- Rohan Atul Khadilkar, Pune vs ITO, Ward 13(1), PunePune2 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is directory, not mandatory, and FTC cannot be denied solely due to a delay in its submission. It condoned the delay and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the FTC af...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026