← 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

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

such foreign taxes were paid by way of tax deduction at source by the foreign payers. 38.1 For the purpose of claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in India, the assessee computed the eligible credit on the basis of net income in accordance with the provisions of section ... receipts. Consequently, a portion of the foreign tax paid, which was not eligible for relief under section 90, could not be claimed as foreign tax credit in the return of income. 38.2 The assessee, therefore, did not claim such excess foreign tax paid as FTC. The amount of foreign tax

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

such foreign taxes were paid by way of tax deduction at source by the foreign payers. 38.1 For the purpose of claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in India, the assessee computed the eligible credit on the basis of net income in accordance with the provisions of section ... receipts. Consequently, a portion of the foreign tax paid, which was not eligible for relief under section 90, could not be claimed as foreign tax credit in the return of income. 38.2 The assessee, therefore, did not claim such excess foreign tax paid as FTC. The amount of foreign tax

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

such foreign taxes were paid by way of tax deduction at source by the foreign payers. 38.1 For the purpose of claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in India, the assessee computed the eligible credit on the basis of net income in accordance with the provisions of section ... receipts. Consequently, a portion of the foreign tax paid, which was not eligible for relief under section 90, could not be claimed as foreign tax credit in the return of income. 38.2 The assessee, therefore, did not claim such excess foreign tax paid as FTC. The amount of foreign tax

Nobuhiro Watabe, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Ncw-17(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3179/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3179/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

follows: The assessee is a foreign citizen. For the assessment year 2018-19, the return of income was filed on 28.08.2018. For claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC), the assessee filed Form 67 belatedly on 04.09.2018. Intimation was issued u/s.142(1) of the Act on 08.04.2020 wherein the FTC amounting ... However, he has filed the return without Form 67 which is required to be filed under Rule 128 to claim the benefit of foreign tax credit and the same came to be filed on February 2, 2021 which was well before the completion of the assessment year. The intimation under

Parekh Marketing Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6563/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2018-19 Parekh Marketing Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Mafatlal House, Income-Tax Circle Backbay, Reclamation, Mumbai Vs. 1(2)(1), - 400020. Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Pan – Aaacp7917J Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Deepak Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri R A Dhyani, (Cit D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In This Case, The Assessee During The Year Under Consideration Being A Company Derives Income From Business & Profession, House Property & Capital Gains Has Declared Its Total Income Of Rs.33,37,07,913/- By Filing Its Return Of Income On 21.11.2018 Which Was Processed By The Cpc Vide Intimation Dated 29.05.2020 Under Section 143 (1) Of The Act, Making Certain 2 Parekh Marketing Limited

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT D.R.)
Section 115Section 143Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 45

adjustments made while computing book profit under Section 115 JB of the Act. (iv) non-granting of foreign tax credit to the tune of Rs.7,17,543/- 4. The Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order though allowed the claim of the Assessee with regard to the foreign tax credit, however affirmed

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

JCIT wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground that the assessee did not make claim relief of foreign tax credit in Form No.67 filed on 29.08.2018 and he filed revised Form No.67 belatedly i.e. on 27.12.2023 with a delay of more than 5 years which ... taxable in India. The ld. AR submits that the assessee filed ITR on 29.08.2018 along with Form No.67 to support the claim of foreign tax credit (‘FTC’) but however inadvertently Form No.67 was filed mentioning nil amount under column of total FTC claim. The ld. AR further submits that

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

JCIT wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground that the assessee did not make claim relief of foreign tax credit in Form No.67 filed on 29.08.2018 and he filed revised Form No.67 belatedly i.e. on 27.12.2023 with a delay of more than 5 years which ... taxable in India. The ld. AR submits that the assessee filed ITR on 29.08.2018 along with Form No.67 to support the claim of foreign tax credit (‘FTC’) but however inadvertently Form No.67 was filed mentioning nil amount under column of total FTC claim. The ld. AR further submits that

Red Hat India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3853/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 92C

Alternate Tax Credit under section 115JAA of the Act amounting to INR 1,70,215. 6. The Ld. AO erred in not granting Foreign Tax Credit under section 90 of the Act amounting to INR 3,61,224. 7. That Ld. AO erred in not granting credit of Self- Assessment ... rendered academic and are therefore left open. 19. As regards Grounds No. 4 to 8 relating to grant of TDS credit, MAT credit, foreign tax credit, self-assessment tax, and interest under section 244A of the Act, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claims of the assessee

Aparna Girish Hebbani, Australia vs. Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5061/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Aparna Girish Hebbani Income Tax Officer, 21, Hallow Crescent, Ward – 2(2)(1), Augustine Heights, Queensland, Vs. Mumbai Australia (Pan : Ahhph4844H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat & Shri Raj Mehta, Cas Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A) 56, Mumbai Vide Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1061197750(1), Dated 20.02.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, U/S. 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 15.01.2022 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Harshavardhan V. Bapat and Shri Raj Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeais) [CIT(A)] erred in upholding the deniat of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) solely on the ground of delay in filing Form 67, without appreciating that such delay was due to genuine hardship. 2. That the learned ... read with the applicable DTAA. 3. That The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by disallowing the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claimed by the appellant in respect of taxes paid in Australia on income (salary) earned and taxed in that country, despite the said income also

Govindarajan Vasudevan, Kanchipuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2718/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Jainendar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

Govindarajan Vasudevan :: 2 :: 2. The only grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) denying the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) as claimed by the assessee. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee, an individual, filed his return of income ... have remitted tax at UK for the salary earned in UK. Accordingly, while filing his RoI in India, the assessee had claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of ₹4,08,792/-, However, the CPC disallowed the FTC due to non-filing of Form 67 along with the RoI. Pursuant

DCIT, Circle 3 4, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 2244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Brand Equity 11 11 9 -- -- -- subscription to Tata Sons 11. Non TDS on commission 12 12 10 -- -- - to non-resident 12. Foreign Tax Credit for 13 and 15 and 12 -- -- -- income u/s.10A/AA 17 17 13. General on section 14 -- -- -- -- -- 194C(2) 14. Deduction u/s.10AA on 15 13 14 -- -- - interest income

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

ITA 1518/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 1Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Brand Equity 11 11 9 -- -- -- subscription to Tata Sons 11. Non TDS on commission 12 12 10 -- -- -- to non-resident 12. Foreign Tax Credit for 13 and 15 and 12 -- -- -- income u/s.10A/AA 17 17 13. General on section 14 -- -- -- -- -- 194C(2) 14. Deduction u/s.10AA on 15 13 14 -- -- -- interest income

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1517/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Brand Equity 11 11 9 -- -- -- subscription to Tata Sons 11. Non TDS on commission 12 12 10 -- -- - to non-resident 12. Foreign Tax Credit for 13 and 15 and 12 -- -- -- income u/s.10A/AA 17 17 13. General on section 14 -- -- -- -- -- 194C(2) 14. Deduction u/s.10AA on 15 13 14 -- -- - interest income

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 351/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

compute its tax liability accordingly. AY 2013-14, 2015-16 to 2017-18 Deloitte Haskins And Sells LLP 5. Re.: Credit for foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.2,70,645/-granted short: 5.1 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not specifically directing the Assessing Officer to grant credit for foreign tax ... appellant for the year under consideration. 5.2 The learned NFAC/CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that all the relevant documents for claim of foreign tax credit was provided in course of assessment proceedings. Hence, the learned AO ought to have been directed to allowed FTC credit of Rs.2

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 350/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

compute its tax liability accordingly. AY 2013-14, 2015-16 to 2017-18 Deloitte Haskins And Sells LLP 5. Re.: Credit for foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.2,70,645/-granted short: 5.1 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not specifically directing the Assessing Officer to grant credit for foreign tax ... appellant for the year under consideration. 5.2 The learned NFAC/CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that all the relevant documents for claim of foreign tax credit was provided in course of assessment proceedings. Hence, the learned AO ought to have been directed to allowed FTC credit of Rs.2

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 320/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

compute its tax liability accordingly. AY 2013-14, 2015-16 to 2017-18 Deloitte Haskins And Sells LLP 5. Re.: Credit for foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.2,70,645/-granted short: 5.1 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not specifically directing the Assessing Officer to grant credit for foreign tax ... appellant for the year under consideration. 5.2 The learned NFAC/CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that all the relevant documents for claim of foreign tax credit was provided in course of assessment proceedings. Hence, the learned AO ought to have been directed to allowed FTC credit of Rs.2

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

ITA 319/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

Nos.319, 320, 350 and 351/Mum/2024 AY 2013-14, 2015-16 to 2017-18 Deloitte Haskins And Sells LLP 5. Re.: Credit for foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.2,70,645/- granted short: 5:1 The NFAC/CIT(A) erred in not specifically directing the Assessing Officer to grant credit for foreign ... year under consideration. 5:2 The learned NFAC/CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that all the relevant documents for claim of foreign tax credit was provided in course of assessment proceedings. Hence, the learned AO ought to have been directed to allowed FTC credit of Rs.2

Vaibhav Das Mundhra, Kolkata vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 35/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 295(1)Section 90

return. Here as per section 295(1) of the Act, CBDT has been given the power to prescribe the procedure for granting foreign tax credit and board does not have power to prescribe for disallowance of foreign tax credit 4. For that CIT(A) erred in trite law that DTAA ... Income- tax rules, 1962, as it stood during the year under consideration, will not preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of foreign tax credit in respect of taxes paid outside India. 6. For that AO and CIT(A) erred in not following the provisions specified in under section

Mahendra Kumar Pandya, Indore vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Ind, Indore

ITA 343/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

processing the return under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the Centralised Processing Centre disallowed the claim of foreign tax credit claimed by the assessee under section 90 of the Act on the ground that Form No. 67 was not filed within the due date ... Rules, filing of Form No. 67 within the due date was mandatory, and since the same was not complied with, the claim of foreign tax credit was denied. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation/order passed under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner

Soumik Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1508/KOL/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant filed statement of computation of income claiming tax relief of Rs.2,20,926/- (foreign tax credit) instead of Rs.5,22,964/- as claimed in his revised return of income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the Form 67 was not filed in time. In our opinion the foreign tax credit cannot be denied mere for the reason of late filing of form 67. We note that the case is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate Benches

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90Section 90(2)

only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of AO wherein disallowed the foreign tax credit due to delay in filing Form 67. 3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee ... appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant filed statement of computation of income claiming tax relief of Rs. 2,20,926/- (foreign tax credit) instead of Rs. 5,22,964/- as claimed in his revised return of income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal