BHAVIK SINGHAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 107/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA, specifically Article 25, allow for FTC claims. The filing of Form 67 is a procedural requirement under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules and not a mandatory condition that can debar the assessee from claiming the credit if other conditions are met. The DTAA provisions override the Income Tax Act where they are more beneficial to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee earned professional income from services rendered in the USA and also income from salary in India. The assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) for taxes paid in the USA while filing the return of income in India. The FTC claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) without assigning any reasons. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal stating it was unclear if the tax was paid in the foreign jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to claim Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) for taxes paid in USA despite alleged procedural non-compliance with filing Form 67, considering the DTAA provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR

Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 107/JP/2024

Hearing: 09/05/2024

PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 29-12-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2020-21. It is noted that ld AR of the assessee has concised the grounds which is reproduced as under:- Ground No.1 -3: Rejection of the Foreign Tax Credit claimed be the assessee was outside the purview of Section 143(1) and even though complied with the requirements of Rule 128

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.

More judgments on Section 90

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →