← All Phrases

“foreign tax credit”

International TaxSection 90 / Rule 128Section 90 / Rule 128571 judgments

The decision most relied on for foreign tax credit is Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad (8 SCC 266), cited in 163 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on foreign tax credit

Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad
8 SCC 266 · 1999 · Supreme Court
163
citing judgments

If a statute or law prescribes that a thing must be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone and in no other way. This principle mandates strict adherence to statutory procedures.

Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT
382 ITR 179 · 2016 · High Court
122
citing judgments

Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is allowable even if no tax is paid in India on the corresponding income due to deductions under sections 10A or 10AA, or losses in other units. The scope of income eligible for deduction under Section 10AA includes interest on deposits and realized gains on forward contracts.

Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO
135 Taxmann.com 358 · 2022 · ITAT
109
citing judgments

The filing of Form 67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is a directory requirement, not mandatory. Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC due to delay in filing this form. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override domestic law.

CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd.
317 ITR 207 · 2009 · High Court
107
citing judgments

For claiming relief under Chapter VI-A deductions like Section 80IB or 80IA, the audit report in Form 10CCB is not mandatory to be filed with the return of income, but can be submitted before the assessment is completed.

Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others
17 SCC 117 · 2008 · Supreme Court
87
citing judgments

Procedural law serves as an aid to justice, not an obstruction, and should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; it is subservient to substantive justice.

42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
139 Taxmann.com 448 · 2022 · ITAT
62
citing judgments

The claim for Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied solely due to a delay in filing Form-67, as the requirement for filing Form-67 under Rule 128(9) is considered directory and not mandatory. The provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) prevail over the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT
460 ITR 615 · 2024 · High Court
50
citing judgments

An assessee's claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) cannot be rejected merely because Form 67 was filed after the due date under section 139(1), provided it is filed before the completion of assessment proceedings.

Sonakshi Sinha v. CIT
142 Taxmann.com 414 · 2022 · ITAT
37
citing judgments

The requirement to file Form 67 by the due date for claiming foreign tax credit is directory, not mandatory, if filed before the completion of assessment proceedings.

Judgments citing foreign tax credit

Madhusudhan Pillai, Vikhroli vs. DCIT Circle-42(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 804/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 6Section 90

Chennai of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “Disallowance Foreign Tax Credit relief under section 90 to Rs. 18,74,932/- 1. The Id CIT(A) erred on facts and in law and under the circumstances in confirming ... action of the A.O in denying Foreign Tax Credit relief u/s 90 of Rs.18,74,932/- by observation that the appellant has not filed form no. 67 of the IT rule 1962 to seek relief ought to be given within the time allowed

Autoliv India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri M. Harischandra Naik, D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 37Section 40

grant of credit of foreign taxes paid outside INR 3 India 3.1 The CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the short grant of foreign tax credit of INR 1,866,641 relating to tax suffered by the Appellant in Korea against its income earned from Korea ... grossly erred in holding that foreign tax credit of INR 15,893,989 has been granted in the Intimation whereas the fact is that foreign tax credit of only INR 14,027,348 was granted in the Intimation INR 843,633 Erroneous computation of interest u/s 234A

Meghna Das, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

grounds of appeal, the assessee seeks to challenge the first appellate order wherein the relief claimed under Section 90 towards foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.8,96,355/- has been denied while assessing the corresponding income derived by way of salary from employer based in United Kingdom (U.K.) namely ... Associates International Inc, U.K. The aggregate salary of Rs.48,81,664/- was duly reflected in the return of income. The assessee also claimed foreign tax credit in terms of Section 90 r.w. Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for the tax deducted by the employer overseas

M/S Wipro Limited, Bnagalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

ITA 3115/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. and Sri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 37(1)Section 90Section 90(1)(b)Section 91

vide order dated 23.5.2022 decided the issue in favour of the assessee as follows: “18. The sixteenth issue relates to the claim of foreign tax credit. The contentions raised by the assessee in this year is two-fold. The first contention relates to the allowability of quantum of foreign tax ... respect of tax credit and it was decided as under:- "9.10 We notice that the issue relating to foreign tax credit has been examined in detail for Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee's own case. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 492/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. andFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 37(1)Section 90Section 90(1)(b)Section 91

vide order dated 23.5.2022 decided the issue in favour of the assessee as follows: “18. The sixteenth issue relates to the claim of foreign tax credit. The contentions raised by the assessee in this year is two-fold. The first contention relates to the allowability of quantum of foreign tax ... respect of tax credit and it was decided as under:- "9.10 We notice that the issue relating to foreign tax credit has been examined in detail for Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee's own case. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations

M/S Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2851/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. andFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 37(1)Section 90Section 90(1)(b)Section 91

vide order dated 23.5.2022 decided the issue in favour of the assessee as follows: “18. The sixteenth issue relates to the claim of foreign tax credit. The contentions raised by the assessee in this year is two-fold. The first contention relates to the allowability of quantum of foreign tax ... respect of tax credit and it was decided as under:- "9.10 We notice that the issue relating to foreign tax credit has been examined in detail for Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee's own case. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations

M/S Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 222/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. and Sri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 37(1)Section 90Section 91

vide order dated 23.5.2022 decided the issue in favour of the assessee as follows: “18. The sixteenth issue relates to the claim of foreign tax credit. The contentions raised by the assessee in this year is two-fold. The first contention relates to the allowability of quantum of foreign tax ... respect of tax credit and it was decided as under:- "9.10 We notice that the issue relating to foreign tax credit has been examined in detail for Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee's own case. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations

Ramakrishna Rao, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

like to 6 Ramakrishna Rao Chintalapudi, AY: 2020-21. reproduce rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) which relates with foreign tax credit as under: “Foreign Tax Credit. 128. (1) An assessee, being a resident shall be allowed a credit for the amount of any foreign tax ... proportion of Indian tax. Neither section 90 nor the DTAA provides that FTC shall be disallowed for non- compliance with any procedural requirement. Foreign Tax Credit is an assessee’s vested right as per Article 22(2) of the DTAA read with Section 90 and the same cannot be disallowed

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 447/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

filing of the appeals. 8.1. We, on considering the fact that the assessee is an individual and has made a legitimate claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) and has also furnished Form 67 and and the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has occurred ... perused the relevant record placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not granting foreign tax credit for the reason that Form 67 was filed after the due date of filing of the return of income. We notice that the assessee

Bijender Singh, Alipurduar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 446/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

filing of the appeals. 8.1. We, on considering the fact that the assessee is an individual and has made a legitimate claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) and has also furnished Form 67 and and the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has occurred ... perused the relevant record placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not granting foreign tax credit for the reason that Form 67 was filed after the due date of filing of the return of income. We notice that the assessee

Bijender Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 445/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 445 To 447/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Bijender Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Alipurduar Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Dsnps3610C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A)-10, Mumbai (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 20 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

filing of the appeals. 8.1. We, on considering the fact that the assessee is an individual and has made a legitimate claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) and has also furnished Form 67 and and the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has occurred ... perused the relevant record placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not granting foreign tax credit for the reason that Form 67 was filed after the due date of filing of the return of income. We notice that the assessee

Sharad Mathur, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 332/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2021-22) Shri Sharad Mathur Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 12(2) Pan:Aogpm3520B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B.Satyanarayana Murthy,Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: /06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana Murthy,CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

upholding the Page 1 of 7 ITA Nos 331 and 332 of 2024 Sharad Mathur disallowance of Rs.1,17,02,466/- being Foreign Tax Credit claimed by the assessee by way of tax relief u/s 90 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that ... relevant income in USA is sine qua non for subjecting the income to tax in USA, which is the primary requirement of allowing foreign tax credit under Article 23 of the relevant DTAA. 8. We find identical issue had come up before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

Louis Xavier D'Costa, Goa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 749/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Louis Xavier D’Costa, Vs. Dcit, H. No.86B C/O Inacio D’Costa, Circle – 3(3)(1), Belloi Nuvem, Bengaluru. Salcette – 403 601, Goa. Pan : Akgpd 2147 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balaji, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 91

whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act wherein assessee’s claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) was denied. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 2 of 5 Assessee was a salaried person employed with Shell India

Shivananda Patil, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

filing of the appeals. 7.1. We, on considering the fact that the assessee is an individual and has made a legitimate claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) and has also furnished Form 67 and and the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has occurred ... perused the relevant record placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not granting foreign tax credit for the reason that Form 67 was filed after the due date of filing of the return of income. We notice that the assessee

Shivananda Pati, Jalpaiguri vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 31/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

filing of the appeals. 7.1. We, on considering the fact that the assessee is an individual and has made a legitimate claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) and has also furnished Form 67 and and the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has occurred ... perused the relevant record placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not granting foreign tax credit for the reason that Form 67 was filed after the due date of filing of the return of income. We notice that the assessee

Shivananda Patil, Jalpaiguri vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 30/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

filing of the appeals. 7.1. We, on considering the fact that the assessee is an individual and has made a legitimate claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) and has also furnished Form 67 and and the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has occurred ... perused the relevant record placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not granting foreign tax credit for the reason that Form 67 was filed after the due date of filing of the return of income. We notice that the assessee

Shivan Vinod Mehra, Malbar Hill Mumbai vs. DCIT-ACIT Circle 1, Asr, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90

filed by the assessee against order dated 26/12/2023 passed by Addl. / JCIT (Appeal)-11, Mumbai for the A.Y.2021-22 with regard to denial of foreign tax credit in the intimation u/s.143(1). 2 Shri Shivan Vinod Mehra 2. The assessee is aggrieved by denial of foreign tax credit of Rs.20 ... from 01/04/2022 and since assessee’s appeal pertain to A.Y. 2021- 22, therefore aforesaid notification is not applicable and accordingly, he denied the foreign tax credit of Rs. 20,86,652/-. 6. After considering the aforesaid facts and the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find there

Maya Kapoor, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 783/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. and Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

submit any contrary view of evidence against the order of 154 of IT Act. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the foreign tax credit of Rs. 4,74,780/- is not allowable in the case of Appellant as the Form 67 as referred in Rule ... circumstances and ratio of the judicial decisions restore the disputed issue for limited purpose to the file of the assessing officer to grant Foreign Tax Credit after verification and in accordance with the law. Further the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting

Suchi Agrawal, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(2)(4), Noida

ITA 601/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Akash Vajpai, Adv. and Ms. Shweta ShandiyalFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

revised grounds which read as under: “1. Ld, CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO who denied the foreign tax credit amounting to Rs. 10,29,861/- to the Assessee for the reason, that form 67 submitted by the Assessee was not filed ... erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. AO’), who denied the foreign tax credit amounting to Rs. 10,29,861/- for the only reason that Form 67 was not filed within due date by assessee / appellant. Page

Prashanth Baburao Kulkarni, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gulbarga

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 192(1)Section 90

sole and substantive issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is regarding not grant of foreign tax credit. The brief facts of Page 2 of 3 the case are that the assessee filed original return of income on 12.11.2016 in which foreign tax credit of Rs.65 ... claimed. Later on, immediately on the same day on 12.11.2016 he filed revised return of income and claimed foreign tax credit. The CPC processed the revised return on 26.02.2018 disallowing foreign tax credit. The assessee also filed return of income u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. vide acknowledgement