JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 996/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 December 2025AY 2023-24Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to furnish the details of FTC claim for taxes paid in Chile and Spain. The matter is restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for proper examination and grant of FTC.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under Section 91 of the Income Tax Act. Due to a clerical error in filing Form No. 67, details for FTC from Chile and Spain were entered under the wrong column, leading CPC to deny the claim. The assessee claimed FTC of Rs. 1,03,92,370/- for these countries.

What were the issues?

Whether the CPC was justified in denying the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claimed under Section 91 of the Income Tax Act due to a clerical error in the submission of Form No. 67.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 91,Section 90,Section 90A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Hearing: 02.12.2025Pronounced: 08.12.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2023-24 is directed against the order dated 19.02.2025 framed by Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai arising out of Intimation Order dated 22.12.2023 passed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other- On facts and in law, 1] The learned Addl CIT(A) erred in holding that the CPC was justified in computing relief u/s 91 to the tune of ₹1,42,39,456/- as against the claim of ₹2,46,31,816/-made by the assessee. 2] The learned Addl. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee was entitled to claim relief of ₹2,46,31,816/- u/s 91 of the Act and John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. there was no reason to allow lesser amount of relief to the assessee company. 3] The learned Addl. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the claim made by the assessee company was justified and hence, relief u/s 91 ₹2,46,31,826/-should be allowed as against ₹1,42,39,456/- allowed by CPC. 4] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3. The sole grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred in affirming the action of CPC not allowing Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of ₹1,03,92,370 claimed u/s.91 of the Income Tax Act.

4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that valid claim of FTC has been made u/s.90 and 91 of the Act and all necessary details were furnished in Form No.67 which was submitted within the prescribed time limit. He submitted that CPC has also captured the details of FTC in the processing sheet. However, due to clerical error in filing some details in Form No.67 of not mentioning FTC u/s.91 of the Act under the correct column, the alleged sum of FTS deducted at ₹27,50,598 for the income earned in Chile and the tax of ₹76,41,772 levied on the income earned in Spain has not been allowed. He prayed that if an opportunity is granted then all necessary details in support of such claim can be placed before the ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and ld. JAO can verify the same and allow the claim accordingly.

5. On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A).

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the business and income of Rs.13,84,91,15,667 declared in the return of income John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. filed on 27.11.2023. In the said return, assessee had claimed FTC u/s.90 of the Act at ₹8,06,67,574 and u/s.91 of the Act at ₹2,46,31,826. Now the assessee is required to furnish Form No.67 in support of its claim of FTC and relevant details needs to be furnished in said form. The CPC based on the details filed in Form No.67 grants the FTC. In the instant case, Form No.67 filed by the assessee is reproduced below :

7.

In the above referred Form No.67, claim of FTC u/s.90 and 91 has been mentioned and the CPC has given FTC which has been claimed u/s.90 of the Act at ₹8,06,67,574 as the same has been mentioned in the correct column. However, for the FTC claimed u/s.91 of the Act which are from three countries, namely Argentina, Chile and Spain, detail of FTC for the taxes paid in Argentina were mentioned in the correct column and accordingly CPC has granted the credit for the same at ₹1,42,39,456. However, for the remaining two countries, i.e. Chile and Spain for which the assessee has claimed FTC at ₹27,50,598 and ₹26,41,772, due to clerical mistakes in place of mentioning under column for section 91

8.

Under these given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that in the larger interest of justice, the assessee deserves one more opportunity and the issue is therefore restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Assessee is directed to furnish the details of FTC claim for taxes paid in Chile and Spain totalling to Rs.1,03,92,370 to the satisfaction of the ld. JAO and ld. JAO on due examination of the details shall grant FTC in accordance with law. Needless to mention that ld. JAO shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 08th day of December, 2025.

More judgments on Section 91

All 252 judgments and leading authorities on Section 91 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →