“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

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

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

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

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

Deloitte Haskins & Sells Chartered Accounts LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 136/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 141(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Return of Income, the assessee claimed TDS of Rs. 5,24,42,170/- as well as Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 5,65,413/- for which tax withholding certificates were received up to the date of filing of Return of Income. 2.1. The Return of Income was processed ... Tax relief of Rs.1,89,452/- under section 90 of the Act. 2. The learned JCIT(A) erred in holding that claim of foreign tax credit was not claimed in return of Income filed and form 67 does not contain the details of foreign tax credit therefore, appellant

Rajesh Babashankar, Chennai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 618/CHNY/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.616, 617 & 618/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2022-2023) Shri. Rajesh Babashankar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of C3, 3Rd Floor, Crescent Park Road, Income Tax, Gandhi Nagar, Besant Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 10(1) Chennai 600 020. Chennai. [Pan: Aagpr 3145K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Easwar, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)

matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 04-12-2020, 19.03.2021 and 07.07.2023 denying Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.3,54,423/-, Rs.3,64,612/- and Rs.5,24,379/- respectively since the assessee did not file Form 67 along with the return of income ... assessee filed this forms on 14.12.2020, 31.08.2019 and 22.11.2022 respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the denial of Foreign Tax Credit considering the provisions of Rule 128 (8) &(9) which mandate the assessee to file this form along with the return of income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal

Rajesh Babashankar, Chennai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 617/CHNY/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2019-2020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)

Rajesh Babashankar, Chennai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 616/CHNY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. S. Easwar, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)

Balasubramanyan Ashok, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Vaidehi .G, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Shamala .D.D, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 6Section 90

Appeals), NFAC (herein referred as Id. CIT(A)') dismissing the appeal was bad in law by observing that the denial of claim of foreign tax credit in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'), cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from ... years under consideration wherein, the FCT was claimed and Form 67 was filed along with the revised return. The assessee claimed a Foreign Tax Credit (FTC), under Article 23 of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). It is submitted that, the FTC was claimed on doubly taxed income

Nirav D. Udani( Executor to the Estate of Late Shri Jitendra Hatiben Udani), Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 296/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) on 31.12.2019, thus, the assessee failed to furnish form No.67 to claim foreign tax credit on or before the due date of filing of the return under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee has not followed the Rule

Vaibhav Singhal, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur

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

ITA 3585/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekvaibhav Singhal, Vs. Ito, Ward 3(3)(5), 102, Golden Paradise, Saharanpur. 2Nd Cross Street, Hennur Bande Bus Stop, Bangalore – 560 043 (Karnataka). (Pan : Dawps9391K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.P. Chitambram, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 Date Of Order : 29.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.10.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Appellants Objects To The Order Dated 12 October 2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) Issued By The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Grounds: 2. Denial Or Claim Of Foreign Tax Credit U/S 90 Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chitambram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the aforesaid assessment year on the following grounds: 2. Denial or claim of Foreign tax credit u/s 90 of the Act 2 2.1 The order of the Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is contrary to law, facts and circumstances ... tax return u/s 139 (1) of the Act. 2.3 The CIT(A) has failed to understand that the assessee is entitled to claim foreign tax credit as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) between India and the host jurisdiction even if a Form 67 is filed along with revised

Bhavik Singhal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 107/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

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 of Income Tax ... filing the return of income in India. Also, while filing Form 67 before the Tax Authorities in India, the assesseo had claimed the Foreign Tax Credit in accordance with Rule 128 and also Article 25 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA Accordingly, the conditions

Manoj Kumar Srivastava, New Delhi vs. Circle 5(1)(1) G B Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3007/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Samita Patni, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90(2)

NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) is erroneous while confirming the order of section 154 owing to the fact that the Claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC was allowable as Form No. 67 was on record at the time of passing of Rectification Order and that the provisions of section ... U.S.A, which credits his salary after withholding tax as per the tax laws of U.S. Therefore, the Assessee claims the benefit of Foreign Tax Credit for the taxes withheld in by the U.S. Tax Authorities. 5. In the case under consideration, the assesse filed the original

Kamuganti Vamshidhar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 467/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Vaidehi Govindarajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 6Section 90

facts and in the circumstances of the case, Central Processing Center (`CPC') and the learned CIT(A) have erred in disallowing the relief / Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claimed by the Appellant under section 90 of the Page 2 Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) basis the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ... declaring total taxable income of INR 8,757,430, and a gross tax liability of INR 1,592,141. The assessee claimed a Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of INR 1,198,909, under Article 23 of India-Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), thereby resulting into a tax refund

Manas Das, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 287/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Manas Das, S/O. Bireswar Das, # 1, Rahat Residency, The Income Tax Rahat Bagh, Officer, Nagavarapalya, Ward – 5(3)(4), C V Raman Nagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan: Acbpd4044N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 6Section 90

facts. Page 2 The below mentioned grounds of appeal are independent of and without prejudice to one another. 1. Disallowance of foreign tax credit on salary: 1.1. The learned CIT(A) / AO have erred in not granting credit for the taxes paid in the US as per Article ... issue of double taxation relief under section 90 of the Act. During the hearing all the documents and evidence for claiming the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) such as US Tax Return (page 37-34 of Paper Book), computation of FTC (page 45 of Paper Book), form 16 (page

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-12, Pune vs. Raj Surendra Mohan Hajela, Pune

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

ITA 470/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

this is a recalled matter. 2 3. The Revenue in the instant appeal has challenged the order of CIT(A) / NFAC in allowing Foreign Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as ‘FTC’) when the assessee has not filed Form No.67 before the due date of filing as per Rule ... assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the AO in the instant case did not allow the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) on the ground that Form No.67 has been filed beyond the due date of filing of the return. We find the NFAC upheld

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur vs. Prabha Nageshwar Rachakondawar, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 85/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 90

under Rule 128(9) of I T Rules, 1962 for filing of Form 67 before due date of filing of return for claiming Foreign Tax Credit u/s.90/91 of the I T Act, 1961. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow the claim of the appellant ... vehemently argued that the CIT(A)'s herein has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to grant foreign tax credit to the assessee despite the fact that the latter had belatedly filed the corresponding Form- 67 under Rule 128 of I.T. Rules, 1963. I notice

Rakesh Reddy Tanguturu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 229/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rakesh Reddy Tanguturu, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of 8-2-293/82/F/A/65, Income Tax, Plot No.65-A, Circle – 6(1), Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan : Aaupy9817A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2019-20 Arises From The Order Of Addl/Jcit (Appeals), Madurai, Dt.31.02.2024 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee, Who Is An Individual Having Income From Business, Other Sources & Agricultural Income. For The Year Under Appeal, In Addition To The Above Sources Of Income, The Assessee Had Also Reported Income From Capital Gains Being Gain On Redemption Of Mutual Funds. For The Previous Year Ending On 31.03.2019 Relevant To Ay 2019-20, The Original Return Of Income Was Filed Electronically On 27.09.2019 Admitting An Income Of Rs.1,35,05,760/- After Claiming Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A Of The Act. In The Original Return Of Income, The Assessee Had Also Reported Loss From Business Of Rs.40,21,673/-. The Business Loss Of Rs.40,21,673/- Was Not Set Off Against Any Other Source Of Income. Subsequently, The Return Was Revised On 21.08.2020 To Report The Revised Loss From Business To Rs.4,47,991/- From Rs.40,21,673/- . Even This Loss Of Rs.4,47,991/- Was Ignored In The Return, Meaning Thereby The Loss From Business Was Not Set Off Against Any Other Source Of Income Both In Original & Revised Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.A.R

Section 143(1)Section 39Section 90

belatedly without any valid reasonable cause. The ld. AR submitted that Rule 128(9) of ITAT Rules does not provide for disallowance of foreign tax credit in case of belated filing of Form No.67 which is directory and not mandatory. We are further of the considered opinion that this issue

Kalyanasundaram Chandrasekaran, Chennai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 382/CHNY/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.382/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Kalyanasundaram Chandrasekaran Ito बनाम/ No.26, Vaidyaraman Street, International Taxation Vs. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadpc-7596-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harshavardhan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Harshavardhan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 30-05-2022 denying Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.1,27,637/- since the assessee did not file Form 67 along with the return of income. The assessee filed this Form ... confirmed the denial of Foreign Tax Credit considering the provisions of Rule 128 (8) & (9) which mandate the assessee to file this form along with the return of income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. We find that this issue has been decided in assessee

Manju Krishnappa, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Appeal, CPC Bangalore and the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Itu Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

which demand of INR 5,85,766 is erroneous on account of the following : I. Non grant of foreign tax credit of INR 4,45,656 2.1 The appellant is a resident and ordinarily resident (ROR) in India during FY 201819 as per the provisions of the Act and accordingly ... Germany, whether directly or by deduction....... ". 2.1.1 Accordingly, while filing his return of income in India, the assessee and claimed the following foreign tax credit of INR 4,45,656 (being lower of average tax rate on doubly taxed income in India and actual taxes paid on income earned

Moog Motion Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

delayed remittance of the employees’ contribution of Rs.2,60,000/- and there was also delayed submission of Form No.67 due to this, the foreign tax credit claimed by the assessee of Rs.5,81,713/- was Page 3 of 19 disallowed which was claimed under section ... should have been filed within the due date of filing of return of income which was filed belatedly on 19.03.2020. Accordingly, the foreign tax credit was not allowed and CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the CPC. 4. Aggrieved from the above order of the CIT(A), assessee filed

Krishnaswamy Balasubramanian Shri Ganesh, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Che-W-(511)-(91), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 469/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.469/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr.Krishnaswamy Balasubramanian Shri Ito बनाम/ Ganesh Che-W-(511)-(91), No.15, Rail Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Medical College Road, Thanjavur – 613 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ctdps-2722-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Considering the period of delay, the delay is condoned and we proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. 2. The assessee was denied Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.63,928/- in view of the fact that the assessee filed applicable Form No.67 after due date of furnishing of return of income

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4076/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Aniruddha Raju Patki, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 232/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

./2024 3. I next note that the learned lower appellate authority has upheld the CPC’s processing dated 08.03.2021 denying the relief on Foreign Tax Credit [“FTC”] to the assessee as under : 4. Mr. Mehta vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly