foreign tax credit — 571 case laws

Sudheendra Phani Kumar Bommathpalli, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1041/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Navneet S Kini, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

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

this consolidated order. Identical ground is raised in these appeals, which reads as follows:- 2 ITA Nos.1041-1042/Bang/2022. Sri.Sudheendra Phani Kumar Bommathpalli. “Foreign tax credit has been disallowed on the grounds that filing of form 67 within due date is a pre-condition for claiming foreign tax credit. This assumption ... assessment years under consideration, the assessee had earned income from salary, capital gains, dividend & interest. The assessee had claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs.1,65,546 and Rs.3,43,020 for the assessment years 2019-2020 and 2020- 2021, respectively. The intimation for assessment year was issued

Subramanian Sreeram, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 1027/BANG/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N. Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 90

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 09.09.2022 for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds:- “1. Foreign tax credit has been disallowed on the grounds that filing of form 67 within due date is a pre-condition for claiming foreign tax credit. This ... Brinda Ramakrishna, ITA No. 454/Bang/2021 vide its order dated 17-Nov-2021. 2. Non-speaking order - Rule 128(8) prescribes documents for claiming foreign tax credit. Appeal has been dismissed on the grounds that the assessee has not complied with rule 128(8), without specifying what documents are expected

Rohan Hattangadi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1896/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rohan Hattangadi Cit(A), 32,33/A, Peace Haven Society, Faceless Appeal Centre, Vs. Bandra, Mumbai-400 050 Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 139(5)Section 244ASection 250Section 90

return of income dated 14.12.2020 and revised return of income on 30.03.2021, along with Form No. 67, which is mandatorily required for claiming foreign tax credit after the due date for filing of the return of income which was on 10.01.2021. On this ground, the ld. CIT(A) held that ... provisions of Rule 128 of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O. in disallowing the foreign tax credit. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for short) for the assessee relied

Bhagwan Tikamdas Khinani, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 2177/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha

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

along with certificates and statements filed by the appellant under Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the claim of foreign tax credit. 3. The CIT (A) was not justified in not allowing the claim under DTAA in respect of tax paid by the appellant ... grant the refund due to the appellant as claimed.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the denial of foreign tax credit under section 90/90A of the Act due to delay in filing Form no.67. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record

Nirmala Murli Relwani, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 2094/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ratnesh Kumar AwasthiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90Section 91

grounds, the NFAC has also erred in denying the fact that even though Form 67 has been filed after due date for which foreign tax credit would not be allowed as per Income tax Rules, however, as per Income Tax Act, the same is allowed. Hence, there is discrimination ... provisions and the appellant should be allowed for such foreign tax credit as per Income Tax Act. 5. That the NFAC has erred in not appreciating the fact that Rules cannot go beyond or against the provisions of the Act as they are framed under the Act and if there

Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 282/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92DSection 9A(3)

erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. Erroneous non-grant of Foreign Tax Credit 11. The Ld. NFAC has erred in law in not granting Foreign Tax Credit. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised