“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

Rita N Patwardhan, Nasik vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2537/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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

learned CIT(A), Delhi-2 erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of relie of Rs.2,04,463/- for foreign Tax Credit u/s. 90 of the ITA, 1961, made by the learned DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru; on account of delay in submitting 2 Form 67 which was submitted after ... income, the assessee claimed relief of Rs.2,04,643/- under section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of foreign tax credit (FTC). However, the requisite declaration in Form No. 67 for claiming FTC was not filed by the assessee along with the return of income

Samir Sood, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2669/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18 Samir Sood, The Nfac-Cit Appeal, Delhi 110002 G-10, Maharani Bagh, Delhi 110065 Pan Aavps 5830 M Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Manoj Kumar, Ca For Revenue : Shri S.L Anuragi, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 90

circumstances of the case and in the law, the NFAC /CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the assessment order and in denying the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs 1,14,217/- for default in filling Form 67 under Rule 128 even pointing out that Form 67 was notified ... while appellant has filed its return of the income on 03.08.2017 disclosing all the facts and figures relating to foreign tax credit in Income Tax Return. The NFAC/CIT (A) Ought to have consider the fact that at the time of filing of Tax return ,Form 67 was not notified. Hence

Ambibuzz Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1084/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

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

only grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) u/s 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act’). 3. Brief facts are that the assessee had filed return of income

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Rs.390,87,36,000 claimed by the Appellant in its return of income, appearing in PAN of ASPL. Non- grant of foreign tax credit for taxes paid in Australia P a g e | 5 Accenture Solutions Private Limited Vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO 33. Erred in not granting foreign tax credit of Rs.9

Amerchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Cir-16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalamarchand & Mangaldas Vs. Commissioner Of Income- & Suresh A Shroff & Co. Tax (Appeals) 5Th Floor, Ganpatrao National Faceless Appeal Kadam Marg, Peninsula Centre (Nfac) Chambers Lower Parel (W) Delhi Maharashtra -400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafa6542P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rasesh ParekhFor Respondent: Ratnakar Shelake

Section 143(2)Section 90

assesse was in the nature of independent professional services, therefore, same was not subject to tax in Japan therefore, claim of foreign tax credit of Rs.3,58,088/- was denied to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assesse filed the appeal before ... said tax credit to the assessee. As we have upheld the plea of the assessee with respect to the admissibility of the foreign tax credit, we see no need to deal with the alternate plea of the assessee seeking deduction of the taxes so withheld abroad in the computation

Pratap Teckchand Dadlaney, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1144/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Shah/Yash RanglaniFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 90

confirming the action of the CPC making adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act’) by disallowing the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claimed of Rs.3,08,036/- u/s 90 of the Act. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee had filed return of income ... filed on 30.10.2020, but the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act by order dated 19.03.2021 disallowed the foreign tax credit of Rs.3,08,036/- on 2 A.Y. 2019-20 Pratap Teckchand Dadlaney the ground that Form No. 67 was not filed within the prescribed time

DCIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 1047/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

tax was not required to be withheld, as it was in the nature of independent personal services. Accordingly, the AO denied the foreign tax credit of Rs.77,29,804 claimed by the assessee under section 90 of the Act. Further, the AO rejected the alternative claim of the assessee ... reducing the turnover to the extent of the foreign tax credit, as the assessee has received the net amount in India, following the approach adopted in the case of the principal firm, i.e. Amarchand and Mangaldas and Suresh A Shroff & Co., for the assessment year 2014-15. 7. The learned

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2017-

ITA 1046/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 90

Souvik Mukherjee, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4246/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshsouvik Mukherjee, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gupta Ranjan K & Co, Ward-59(3), 208 Ansals Laxmi Deep Laxmi New Delhi Nagar, District Centre, Delhi- 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agtpm9231G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 15Section 5Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

instant case by working out @5.92% which has no support from the provisions of Act or in DTAA. Hence, the said determination of foreign tax credit by the AO is hereby rejected. However, we direct the ld AO to allow the foreign tax credit in full in respect of tax

Vikash Daga, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2536/DEL/2022[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2019-20 Vikash Daga Acit Flat No. D-022, The Belaire, Vs Circle – 3 (1) Golf Course Road, Dlf Gurgaon Phase 5 Gurgaon Haryana Pan No.Adipd4214E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO who denied the foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.18,87,114/- for the reason form 67 was submitted by the assessee after the due date of filing of the return of income ... India. The return of income was filed on 10.08.2019 declaring total income of Rs.165854280/- which included income earned in USA and claimed foreign tax credit of Rs.18,87,114/- u/s. 90 of the Act. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act wherein the demand of Rs.1262070/-was created

Sharda Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. CPC/Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.930 & 931/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21)

For Appellant: N.R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 139Section 154Section 250Section 90Section 91

finding will be applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeal. “The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the non-credit of foreign tax credit Rs.2,31,213/- u/s 90/91.” P a g e | 2 Sharda Maheshwari Vs. CPC, Circle 19(3) ITA Nos. 930 & 931/Mum/2023 2. The fact in brief ... before the due date specified for furnishing return of income under sub-section (1) of Sec. 139 to claim foreign tax credit. Since the assessee failed to furnish Form No. 67 on or before due date of filing return of income, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has disallowed the claim

Sharda Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. CPC/Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 930/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.930 & 931/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2019-20 & 2020-21)

For Appellant: N.R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 139Section 154Section 250Section 90Section 91

DCIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result ITA No. 723/Mum/2023 is dismissed, ITA No

ITA 723/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ajit Kumar Jain CA &

Section 142(1)Section 40Section 90

made to KPMG International Co-operative, Switzerland without TDS. The AO also denied the claim of the assessee of foreign tax credit to the extent of 71, 39,952/- pertaining to Japan. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of AY 2015-16: 20. During the year under consideration, the assessee ... made to KPMG International Co-operative, Switzerland without TDS. The AO also denied the claim of the assessee of foreign tax credit to the extent of 43, 55,934/-. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of AY 2016-17:- 31. During the year under consideration, the assessee has made payments

Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 90

taxes paid outside India while processing the return of income under section 143(1), even though such rejection of the claim of foreign tax credit did not fall within the purview of Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal ... tax paid in UK of Rs. 2,32,870/-, in accordance with section 90/91 of the IT Act. For claiming the aforementioned Foreign Tax Credit (FTC), amounting to Rs. 2,32,870/-, as per Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, Form 67 was filed

Sonia Sharma, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(4), Noida

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

ITA 316/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Sonia Sharma, Vs Ito, A-132, Sector-40, Noida, Gautam Ward-5(3)(4), Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301. Noida. Pan-Bosps3283Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Ca & Ms. Sonia Sharma (Assessee In Person) Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.04.2023

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90Section 901

impugned order dated 15.12.2022 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The Assessing Officer (“AO”) declined to give Foreign Tax Credit (“FTC”) relief to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal ... also observed that the assessee did not file Form No.67 for the claim as all the required conditions have not been made, Foreign Tax Credit relief could not be allowed to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1953/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR

Section 115

Special Bench - Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. India and another country, Section 91 allows relief from double taxation, in the form of foreign tax credit. 67. Following Model forms of DTAA exist viz., I. OECD Model Tax Convention – Based on Residence principle. II. UN Model Double Taxation Convention – Based

“foreign tax credit”

Leading authorities on foreign tax credit

Judgments citing foreign tax credit

Rita N Patwardhan, Nasik vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

Samir Sood, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

Ambibuzz Technologies LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, CPC, Bengaluru

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

Amerchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Cir-16(2), Mumbai

Pratap Teckchand Dadlaney, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

DCIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mumbai

DCIT, Cir 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Mumbai

Souvik Mukherjee, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Vikash Daga, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

Sharda Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. CPC/Circle 19(3), Mumbai

Sharda Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. CPC/Circle 19(3), Mumbai

DCIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

Sonia Sharma, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(4), Noida

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-6, New Delhi

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi