← 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

Mahesh Ram Vittal, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1078/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

treaty. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) /AO have erred in not granting foreign tax credit of taxes paid in USA on interest and dividend income as per Article 25 of India — USA treaty for the period of April ... income earned outside India. Hence, global income received by the assessee is to be taxed in India. The assessee has also claimed foreign tax credit of Rs.3,81,675/- in terms of Article 25 of the Indo US DTAA and failed to offer the salary income received in USA, therefore

Ces Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Ces Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcs4564P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 37(1)Section 90

erred in considering the fact that the Ld. CPC, Bangalore ought to have appreciated the fact that the foreign tax credit as claimed by the assessee company was not considered in computation but the same was considered in Annexure TR (As computed) in the Rectification order u/s 154 which clearly ... erred in considering the fact that filing of Form 67 is not mandatory but directory in nature and disallowing the rightful claim of Foreign Tax Credit on the simple reason, being the assessee failed to file Form 67 within the due date, is bad in law and unjustified

Narendra Nath Ratnakaram, Bangalore vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1101/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Adam Kajabee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 90

outset, we note that the issue raised by assessee in both the appeals pertains to non-granting of foreign tax credit to the assessee as per article 25(2)(a) of the DTAA; between India and USA r.w.s. 90 of the IT Act. Therefore the grounds raised by assessee ... withheld the relevant taxes in USA. The assessee while filing the return of income during the relevant years under consideration claimed the foreign tax credit of Rs. 23,328/- for A.Y. 2017-18 and Rs. 32,392/- for A.Y. 2019-20. It is submitted that, inadvertently Form

Narendra Nath Ratnakaram, Bangalore vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1100/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Adam Kajabee, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 90

outset, we note that the issue raised by assessee in both the appeals pertains to non-granting of foreign tax credit to the assessee as per article 25(2)(a) of the DTAA; between India and USA r.w.s. 90 of the IT Act. Therefore the grounds raised by assessee ... withheld the relevant taxes in USA. The assessee while filing the return of income during the relevant years under consideration claimed the foreign tax credit of Rs. 23,328/- for A.Y. 2017-18 and Rs. 32,392/- for A.Y. 2019-20. It is submitted that, inadvertently Form

Primasonic Spectrum Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1465/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1465/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Primasonic Spectrum Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Vs. Ward-20(1), 66, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, C.R. Building, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Aafcp0243E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 91

sustaining the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act passed by the CPC – Bangalore and in not allowing foreign tax credit while passing the order u/s 143(1) of the Act. I.T.A.No.1465/Del/2023 2. Heard rival submissions. The assessee filed its original return of income on 19.10.2019 within time specified ... Form No.67. The CPC-Bangalore processed the revised return vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 28.03.2021 without allowing claim for foreign tax credit u/s 91 of the Act even though the assessee filed Form 67 along with the revised return filed on 12.09.2020. 3. We observe that

A.T. Kearney Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 498/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, Delhi ('the Ld. AO'), has erred in not permitting correction of claim regarding Foreign Tax Credit ('FTC') amounting to fNR 82,38,600 made during the assessment proceedings for A Y 2017- 18. 3. On the facts and circumstances ... allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 relate to the corporate tax issues relating to the claim regarding Foreign Tax Credit [FTC]. 12. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer has not allowed complete credit of foreign taxes paid by the assessee

A.T Kearney Ltd -India, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2257/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, Delhi ('the Ld. AO'), has erred in not permitting correction of claim regarding Foreign Tax Credit ('FTC') amounting to fNR 82,38,600 made during the assessment proceedings for A Y 2017- 18. 3. On the facts and circumstances ... allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 relate to the corporate tax issues relating to the claim regarding Foreign Tax Credit [FTC]. 12. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer has not allowed complete credit of foreign taxes paid by the assessee

Uma Maheshwar Rao Vendavelli, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 (3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 34/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Monish Sawkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Subramanian.S, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

relevant assessment year is 2020-2021. 2. The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claimed u/s.90 of the Act, amounting to Rs.43,015. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee an individual

Sh. Pawan Kumar, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ahuja, Advocate and Shri Pawan Kumar, AssesseFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. It was submitted that neither Section 90 nor India-USA DTAA provides that Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) shall be disallowed for non compliance with any procedural requirement. It was submitted that FTC is the assessee’s vested right as per Article ... Further, reference was drawn to notification no. 100/2022 dated 18/08/2022 whereby the due date for filing and claiming foreign tax credit has been extended to the end of the assessment year as per section 139(4) of the Act. It was submitted that said relaxation has been made applicable from

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Ssnr Projects Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 161/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2019-20) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Tax, Circle-3(1), Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 29/Viz/2023 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2019-20) M/S. Ssnr Projects Private Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aarcs 2464 C (Cross Objector / Respondent In (Appellant In Appeal) Appeal) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Samuel Nagadesi ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/02/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 28/02/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Samuel NagadesiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

that the assessee has filed its return of income on 31/10/2019 admitting a total income of Rs.12,81,68,235/-. The assessee claimed foreign tax credit of Rs. 2,83,87,928/- while filing the return of income but has not filed Form-67 as prescribed under Rule ... Bangalore wherein the CPC disallowed the assessee’s claim of relief U/s. 90 / 90A of the Act with regard to foreign tax credit. Subsequently, the assessee filed the Form-67 online but the CPC Bangalore did not consider the same and passed the intimation

Income Tax Office, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad vs. Venigandla Krishna, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 45/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Income Tax Officer, Venigandla Krishna, Ward-12(1), Vs. Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Bgkpv3694J] अपीलधर्थी/Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी/Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2024 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 27/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M: Challenging The Order Dated 20-12-2023 Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(Appeals)-6, Mumbai, Revenue Preferred This Appeal For The Ay. 2021-22. 2. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Having Income From India & Abroad. He Has Filed The Income Tax Returns By Declaring Income From All Sources. Assessee Filed Form 67 After The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return & Claimed The Relief Under Section 90/9A Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Amounting To Rs. 59,07,195/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Assessing Officer Disallowed The Foreign Tax Credit (Ftc) Claimed By The Assessee & Finalized The Assessment. Aggrieved By Such A Finding Of The Assessing Officer, Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Cit(A). 3. Learned Addl/Jcit(A) After Considering The Facts Of The Case, Allowed The Appeal Of Assessee, Directing The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer To Allow The Ftc As Per Form 67 Filed By The Assessee & Claimed In His Itr For The Said Year, By Stating As Under:

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 139Section 90

Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) amounting to Rs. 59,07,195/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer disallowed the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claimed by the assessee and finalized the assessment. Aggrieved by such a finding of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before ... appellant filed the Form No. 67 on 31/01/2022, (date of order 31/10/2022) well before the processing of the ITR, the denial of Foreign Tax Credit by CPC was not called for. It is worthwhile to mention that on similar set of facts, while deciding the appeal in the case

Nagubabu Kuchibhotla, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 28/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.28/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Nagubabu Vs. Income Tax Officer Kuchibhotla Ward-12(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ahlpk3559L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. P Prabhakara Murthy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit(A)Nfac In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.4,40,939/- Being Foreign Tax Credit Claimed By The Assessee By Way Of Tax Relief U/S 90 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Adv. P Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the learned CIT(A)NFAC in upholding the disallowance of Rs.4,40,939/- being Foreign Tax Credit claimed by the assessee by way of tax relief u/s 90 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Page ... individual and filed his return of income on 28.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.34,80,550/- and claimed tax relief u/s 90/90A as Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs.4,40,939/-. The CPC did not allow the claim of FTC of Rs.4,40,939/- at the time of processing

Pramod Tarade, Raigad vs. CIT ( NFAC ), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 898/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

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

Pramod Tarade [A] the case. 2. The CIT(A) NFAC, had erred in passing an order and disallowing the claim of relief of foreign tax credit u/s 90 of the income tax act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,02,316/- on the Foreign Salary income ... which has been doubly taxed in the Norway and in India. 3. The CIT (A) NFAC, has not disputed the allowability of the foreign tax credit. He has only disallowed the credit on the ground that form 67 has not been filed on or before the due date of filing

Dr. Venkataramani Sumantran, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1454/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1454/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dr. Venkataramani Sumantran, The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.67, 19Th Street, Vs. Income Tax, Venkateshwara Nagar, Central Circle 3(3), Kottivakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 041. Pan: Aakps 5105J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Nagarajan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Nagarajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)

only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance on foreign tax credit of Rs.1,97,939/- claimed by the assessee for the reason that Form No.67 was filed only on 29.11.2019 with a delay of 29 days from

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

fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in not granting the foreign tax credit of Rs. 3,11,083/- 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in charging the excess interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C ... income disclosed ITA No. 3595 & 3597/Mum/2023 Vipul Parimal Thakore, Mumbai. and also tax of Rs.3,11,083/- paid/deducted in USA was claimed as Foreign Tax Credit(FTC), as the assessee is eligible to claim tax relief u/sec 90 of the Act as per Double Taxation Avoidance and Agreement (DTAA) with

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

appeal: 1. The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming the action of AO in not granting Foreign Tax Credit relief amounting to ₹ 83,445/- u/s 90 of the Act, as claimed by the Appellant in his return of income. The appellant submits that ... earned in United Kingdom (UK) on which he has paid taxes of ₹ 83,445/0 in UK; hence the AO ought to have allowed foreign tax credit of ₹ 83,445/- u/s 90 of the Act while assessing Appellant’s total income. 4. The brief facts of the case are that

Power and Energy Consultants India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3420/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshpower & Energy Consultants Vs. Ito, India Pvt. Ltd, Ward-19(1), House No. U-136, Vikas Marg, Delhi Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg3625J Assessee By : Shri Harish Chaudhary, Ca Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca Ms. Neetu Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Harish Chaudhary, CaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90ASection 91

declaring total income of Rs. 1,20,61,610/- wherein, a sum of Rs. 30,10,546/- was claimed as foreign tax credit. This return was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.10.2022, wherein, the foreign tax credit of Rs. 30,10,546/- being the relief claimed ... filed by the assessee in support of the same. Subsequently, on 19.11.2022, the assessee filed Form 67 vide acknowledgement No. 811297900191122 claiming foreign tax credit of Rs. 30,58,484/- and filed rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act on 23.11.2022. The same was dismissed on the ground that Form

Comviva Technologies Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 914/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra,AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

conveyance expenditure; b) ad-hoc disallowance of software service charges; c) ad-hoc disallowance of employee benefit expenses; d) denying part of foreign tax credit; and e) denying part of credit for taxes withheld at source, without providing any cogent reasons thereof. 2. That on facts and in circumstances ... That on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in denying foreign tax credit to the extent of INR 9,09,61,221 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income, without providing any reasons thereof

Manaksia Limited, Kolkata vs. CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1339/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 250Section 43B

Bengaluru, that non-filing of Form 67 before filing the Return of Income is a procedural defect and the appellant cannot be denied foreign tax credit amounting to INR 1,05,737/- provided under the Income tax Act on account of such procedural lapse. 3. On the facts and circumstances ... assessee accordingly. 7. Ground no. 2: The assessee has agitated against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 1,05,737/- on account of foreign tax credit for late filing of Form 67. 8. The Ld. A.R of the assessee has submitted that the late filing of Form 67 was procedural

Rajesh Kumar Lakhran, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-7(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/JPR/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Choudhary (Proxy)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 154Section 90

facts and in the circumstances of the case he should be considered the relief u/s 90 of IT Act, 1961 or foreign tax credit (FTC) rule 128(9). 2. The assessing officer is not justified, because he is not allowing the relief u/s-90 of IT Act, 1961 (FTC rule ... income earned for services rendered in Belgium as his Global Income was taxable in India. He claimed 3 Rajesh Kumar Lkhran vs. ITO foreign tax credit (FTC) for taxes paid in Belgium. The ld. AO noted that the Assessee did not file form 67 before filing the income tax return