“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

Prajosh Nanu, Mumbai-400022 vs. Asst. Dirctor of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1169/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1169/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Prajosh Nanu बिधम/ Acit, Cpc Room No. 3, Plot No. 265, Vs. Sanjoli Building, Sulochana Shetti, Marg Sion West, Mumbai-400022. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apkpk0260R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 22.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Relevant Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Herein Referred As ‘The Ld. Cit (A)’ Has Erred In Not Granting The Credit Of Foreign Taxes Paid As Should Have Been Duly Allowed Under Article 24(2) Of The India-Uk Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (‘Dtaa’) Read With Section 90 Of The Act, Even Though The Appellant Was ‘Resident’ In India & Therefore, Had Offered His Global Income To Tax In India Including The Uk Sourced Income Which Had Suffered Tax In Uk As Well.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & SiddheshFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234CSection 90

Prajosh Nanu u/s 143(1) of the Act which was served upon the assessee on 18.01.2021. As per the above intimation, the entire Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of INR 8,02,913 as claimed by the assessee was not allowed by CPC. Aggrieved by the said intimation, the assessee filed ... case the appellant has filed the return of income on 31/08/2019. However, the form 67 as mandatorily required to be filed for claiming foreign tax credit was not filed or furnished on or before the due date of furnishing of return of income which was 31.08.2019. Therefore, the claim

Sanjiv Gopal, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sanjiv Gopal, Vs. Adit, No.181, Ground Floor Mandara, Cpc, 2B Cross, 4Th Main, Domlur 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Agvpg 2262 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

claimed that the Page 2 of 13 foreign tax paid of Rs.7,61,129/- should be allowed as credit (referred to as Foreign Tax Credit (FTC)) in terms of Sec.90 of the Act which provides for relief against double taxation of same income in two countries. For claiming such ... furnishing of the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. Therefore, the AO/CPC has rightly rejected the claim of Foreign Tax Credit of the appellant as not allowable to the appellant. Page 6 of 13 6. Aggrieved by the order of NFAC (Appeals), the assessee

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1845/MUM/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Anuj Bhagwati Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Nishant House, 6, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Carmichael Road, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai-400086 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aehpb1858C Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR

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

Tax Appeal, NFAC has also erred in confirming the wrong non allowance of relief to the tune of ₹ 14,22,129/- related to Foreign Tax credit under Section 90 of the Act. (B) Relief Prayed: The appellant therefore prays, to allow the relief of ₹ 14,22,129/- on account ... Foreign Tax Credit paid in the USA as per the provision of Section 90 and Article 25(2)(a) DTAA entered into by the Government of India and Government of the USA. (C) General: The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to vary, to delete or to amend

Anuj Bhagwati, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1844/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha.DR

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

Sonakshi Sinha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1704/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Commissioner Of Income-Tax Sonakshi Sinha (Appeals) 49A, Ramayan, 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Mumbai-400 049 Centre (Nfac) Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bepps6007F Assessee By : S/Shri K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ajay Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR

Section 139Section 143Section 90

assessee against appellate order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)[ learned CIT (A)] for assessment year 2018 – 19 on 27/4/2022 denying foreign tax credit of ₹ 2,921,327/–. 02. Assessee has raised following grounds:- “i. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Commissioner of Income ... National faceless appeal Centre has 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 ₹ 2,921,327/– on the same income of ₹ 14,610,080/– offered in the same year, which has been doubly

Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Vs. Ito, Flat B002, Renaissance Brindavan, Cpc, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Ahwps 5221 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

passed. The appellant subsequently filed Form No. 67 (statement of income from a country or specified territory outside India and Foreign Tax Credit) on 08-02-2020 and made a rectification application on 29-05-2020 before the CPC Bangalore for giving credit to the Taxes deducted outside India ... Tax paid/ deducted. The above decision cannot come to the rescue of the appellant as the appellant did not make any claim of Foreign Tax Credit in the return filed and therefore the 154 application was rejected on the ground that the appellant has made a fresh claim and there

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 680/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 90

order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 7.6.2022 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. Foreign tax credit has been disallowed on the grounds that return of income for AY 2018-19 was not filed within the due date. This expectation ... line with the rule 128(1) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. 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 is not in line with the decision of this Vinodkumar

Santosh Kumar Yekula, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 561/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Santosh Kumar Yekula, Flat No. 591, Pace Prana The Assistant Director Apartments, Of Income Tax, 109 Padikuppam Road, Cpc, Anna Nagar West Extn, Bengaluru. Vs. Chennai – 600 040. Pan: Abnpy7738B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Risha P, Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 17-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-08-2022

For Appellant: Ms. Risha P, CA

Section 143(1)

issue on merits, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not consider Form 67 for Page 2 of 4 the claim of foreign tax credit and the disallowance was made u/s. 143(1) of the Act without giving an intimation to the assessee. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that

Tanmoy Ghosh, Maharashtra vs. Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 550/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2. The only issue alleged by assessee in these appeals are in respect of non-granting of foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.3,59,082/- for A.Y. 2017-18 and Rs.24,61,493/- for A.Y. 2018-19. It is submitted that the above claim

Tanmoy Ghosh, Maharashtra vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 549/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)

Udayan Bhaskaran Nair, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1213/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245Section 246A

assessee made inquiries with the tax authorities and found that the tax demand has arisen in AY 2010-11, since foreign tax credit was not given credit in that year. Then the assessee filed a petition under section 154 for A.Y. 2010-11, wherein it was stated that he came ... know of the error of non-credit of foreign tax credit only after receipt of intimation under section 245 of the Act. Above said rectification application was filed before the Assessing Officer on 11.4.2018, much after the expiry of limitation period for filing rectification petition

M/S. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

Grounds 21 to 21.4) 4. Incorrect adoption of income from other source (Grounds 22 to 22.2) 5. Disallowance of additional foreign tax credit (Grounds 23 to 23.2) 6. Disallowance of TDS credit (Grounds 24 to 24.2) 7. Interest u/s. 234B (Grounds 25 to 25.2) 8. Non-grant of interest ... Grounds 27 to 27.1) 3. The assessee has raised additional by way of ground No.28 with regard to deduction in respect of unclaimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC). The ld AR submitted that the issue of claiming deduction for taxes paid outside India in respect of which no credit is claimed

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited (Formerly Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2387/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 40

this order, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. 16. Ground No.8 is with regard to grant of foreign tax credit. 16.1 Ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer denied foreign tax credit claimed by the Appellant in respect of its units eligible for deduction under Section 10AA ... Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore Page 25 of 26 case of Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT ([2015] 62 taxmann.com 26 (Karnataka) – (para 52), the foreign tax credit claimed ought to be allowed. 16.2 Further any enhancement to total income, in so far as it relates to the income of the eligible

M/S Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2898/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 40

Shri Samir Subhas Mogul, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 16(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 817/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

appreciating that relief claimed in appeal against Intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 viz., grant of foreign tax credit has not been allowed in the order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence appeal against Intimation under section ... issued to the assessee considering the total income at Rs.11,38,920/-. In the said intimation, the CPC Bangalore did not grant foreign tax credit u/s. 90 / 90A of the Act in the sum of Rs.31,097/- and correspondingly, reduced the refund due to the assessee. The assessee filed

Prashant Vijay Kale, Thane vs. CPC, Income Tax Dept., Bengaluru

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

ITA 2100/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm National Faceless Appeal Prashant Vijay Kale Center 47-403, Swastik Residency, Centralized Processing Near Muchhala College, Vs. Gb Road Kavesar, Center, Income Tax Thane, Mumbai-400 615 Department, Bengaluru (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adapk8367M Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Adv Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Rajan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Rajan Samal, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 4(2)Section 6(1)Section 90

facts and circumstances of the case and in law in rejecting the Prashant Vijay Kale, A.Y. 18-19 claim of the Appellant for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of INR 18,66,509 under Article 24(2) of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) read with Section ... filing the original return and the revised return of income (on or before the due date for filing) including the computation of foreign tax credit and proof of taxes deducted in UK. 3. The NFAC has erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in disallowing

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 10. Erroneous non-grant of Foreign Tax Credit 10.1. The Ld. AO has erred in law in not granting Foreign Tax Credit. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised ... assessee in respect of set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation, set off of MAT credit, and non-granting of foreign tax credit. We direct the Ld.AO to consider the above claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to furnish relevant information / details in support

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2579/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

2579/Bang/2019 DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 4. Erroneous non-grant of Foreign Tax Credit 4.1. The Ld. AO has erred in law in not granting Foreign Tax Credit. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground ... assessee in respect of set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed deprecation, set off of MAT credit, and non-granting of foreign tax credit. We direct the Ld.AO to consider the above claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to furnish relevant information / details in support

Hinduja Global Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1047/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in not granting foreign tax credit ('FTC') of Rs. 1,66,89,930 under section 90 of the Act by restricting FTC to Rs.4,84,29,482 as against ... Return of Income. The Appellant prays that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal) be directed be directed to grant the balance foreign tax credit of Rs.1,66,89,930 u/s 90 of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case