TESSOLVE SEMICONDUCTOR PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1) , BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a mandatory requirement and must be furnished on or before the due date for filing the return of income. Non-compliance with this rule disentitles the assessee from claiming FTC.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in a revised return, supported by Form 67 filed after the due date for the original return. The CPC denied the FTC, citing the mandatory filing of Form 67 by the due date as per Rule 128(9). The NFAC upheld this decision, dismissing the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the filing of Form 67 is mandatory before the due date for claiming Foreign Tax Credit, and if late filing invalidates the claim.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Muralikrishna Vaddi v. ACIT/Dy.CIT12 citing142 Taxmann.com 32 · 2022 · ITAT
- Sanjeev Gopal v. ADIT6 citing145 Taxmann.com 378 · 2022 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
Per Soundararajan K, Judicial Member :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') dated 30.12.2023, in respect of Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in the business of Semiconductor Test Engineering solutions. During the Assessment Year 2021-22, assessee filed its original return of income on 10.03.2022. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return on 28.03.2022 and claimed the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) earned for the income earn
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 →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026