PRUKALPA SANKAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(5), BENGALURU

ITA 2100/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 December 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory and not a mandatory requirement, and its belated filing does not preclude the claim of FTC. It was also held that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions prevail over domestic law when beneficial to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual resident in India, earned salary income from a Singapore-based company. The assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) but filed Form 67 belatedly. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the FTC under Section 154 of the Act, and the CIT(A) confirmed this order.

What were the issues?

Whether belated filing of Form 67 can be a ground to deny the benefit of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) as per Section 90 and Rule 128, especially in light of DTAA provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 154,Section 139(1),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh K & Devashish Jain
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Hearing: 05.12.2024Pronounced: 16.12.2024

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl./JCIT (A-7), Mumbai, dated 23/09/2024, for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. ITA No. 2099/Bang/2024, an appeal by the assessee for the AY 2018-19

ITA No.2099 & 2100/Bang/2024 2. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) by denying the benefit of foreign tax credit (FTC) under section 90 read with Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules.

3.

The assessee, an individual deriving income under the h

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.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →