RAMESH BABU JASTI,GANDIPET vs. ITO., WARD-12(6), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. Since the form was filed before the assessment order was passed, the FTC cannot be denied. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a salaried employee, received salary from both Indian and US entities while on assignment in the USA. He offered his global income to tax in India and claimed foreign tax credit (FTC) but filed Form 67 belatedly. The Assessing Officer denied FTC due to the delayed filing of Form 67.
What were the issues?
Whether foreign tax credit can be denied solely for belated filing of Form 67, or if the provision is directory in nature.
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.
- CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.2,664 citing88 ITR 192 · 1973 · SC
- Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT914 citing432 ITR 471 · 2021 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary
Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate, but identical orders passed by the learned Addl/JCIT-1 Ludhiana dated 26/06/2024 and 25/06/20254 and pertains to A.Ys 2020-21 & 2021-22. Since facts are identical and issues involved in these appeals are common, for the sake of convenience, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.
ITA No.760/Hyd/2024 – A.Y 2020-21
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and is a reside
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 →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026