1. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. Pr.CIT

336 CTR 108High Court2024#18177 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 10Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89Section 90

Issues it is cited on

foreign tax creditsection 91section 90final assessment ordersection 139(1)section 139section 143(1)section 13prescribedindiasection 143section 250

Judgments citing 1. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. Pr.CIT

GOPAL KRISHNAN GOPINATH,CHENNAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BSNL BUILDING GREAMS ROAD CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3878/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. Balamurugan MFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 89

…dit [for short FTC] as per Form 67 filed by the assessee is allowable? 4. We find that this is covered against the assesee by the judgement of this jurisdictional High Court in the case of “Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT (2024) 296 Taxman 502/ 460 ITR 615 / 336 CTR 108(Mad.) (HC)”. 5. In the present case, we find that the assessee submitted Form 67 only on 24.03.2025, however, the intimation u/S 143(1) was issued on 15.03.2021. Therefore, the assessee filed Form 67 much after Gopal Krishnan Gopinath (Vs) Assessing Officer International :: 3 :: due date of filing of return as specified u/S 139(1) of the Act a…

SAUMITRA KUMAR, LUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1520/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1520/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Saumitra Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. Hig 111, Sector E, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024. Pan : Bcmpk7370J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naman Maloo (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Indore [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In, Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao(Cpc) In Disallowing The Credit Of Taxes Paid Outside India While Processing The Return Of Income (Foreign Tax Credit, "Ftc") Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Such Rejection Is Beyond The Purview Of Section 143(1). The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please

For Appellant: Shri Naman Maloo (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

…4.07.2022 which was beyond the due date for filing the return u/s.139(1) of the Act. Assessee was denied FTC solely on the ground of filing of Form No.67 belatedly. We observe that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT (2024) 336 CTR 108 (Madras) has held that filing of Form No.67 read with Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 is only directory in nature and not mandatory. Similar view has also been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Preeti Das (supra) placing reliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (supra) Finding of th…

VIPUL CHANDRAKANT SAWALWADE,PUNE vs. THE ITO WARD 13(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.659/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

…due date for filing the return u/s.139(1) of the 3 Vipul Chandrakant Sawalwade Act. Assessee was denied FTC solely on the ground of filing of Form No.67 belatedly. We observe that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT (2024) 336 CTR 108 (Madras) has held that filing of Form No.67 read with Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 is only directory in nature and not mandatory. Similar view has also been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Preeti Das (supra) placing reliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (supra) Finding of th…

VIPUL PARIMAL THAKORE,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 3595/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri.Anuj Krisnadwala.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 90

…agreements. Further there is no amendment in the Section 90 of the Act with regard to claim of FTC and in such cases Rule procedures are directory and not mandatory. The Ld. AR relied on the following judicial decisions: 1. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Vs. Pr.CIT [336 CTR 108(Madras) 2. Sonakshi Sinha Vs. CIT(A) [197 ITD 263 (MUM) 3. Shishir Agarwal Vs. ADIT (ITA No. 3029/Mum/2023) 9. We find Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No.29/Bang/2021 in M/s 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT-3(1)(1), Bangalore dated 07.03.2022 has considered the facts & law on the filing of Form. No. 67 and observed at Page 4 Para 4 to 8 of the…

MR JOHN ARUNKUMAR DIAZ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19 (1) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 3647/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaljohn Arunkumar Diaz Vs. Dcit-19(1), 8A, Saahil, Room No. 203, 2 Nd Floor, 14 Altamount Road, Matrumandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aecpd6518C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Mahesh Rajora.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 90

…in Section 90 of the Act with regard to claim of FTC and in such cases rule P a g e | 6 AY 2018-19 John Arunkumar Diaz procedures are directory and not mandatory. The Ld. AR relied on the following judicial decisions: 1. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy Vs. Pr.CIT [336 CTR 108(Madras) 2. Sonakshi Sinha Vs. CIT(A) [197 ITD 263 (MUM) 3. Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna Vs/ The ITO (ITA No. 454/Bang/2021) (ITAT Banglore. 4. Nirmala Murli Relwani Vs/ ADIT (198 ITD 603) (Mumbai) 5. Anuj bhagwati Vs/ DCIT (ITA No. 1844 and 1845/Mum/2022) (ITAT Mumbai) 6. Rohan Hattangadi Vs. CIT(A) (ITA No. 1896/Mum/2022) (ITAT Mumbai) 7. Suresh Kumar…