“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

Joel Eliah Pusanur, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3517/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Joel Eliah Pusanur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of B-29B Ground Floor, Income Tax, Paryavaran Complex, Circle International Saidulajab South West Delhi, Taxation-1 (2)(2), Civic Paryavaran Complex, 110030, Centre, Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aajpe8821A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sidhesh Chaugule, Adv(Vc) Revenue By Sh. Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025 Order

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

accepted return of income filed by the assessee of Rs. 1,28,94,060/- and denied the claim of Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 12,38,077/- and raised a demand of Rs. 16,08,742/-. Against the intimation order dated 19.03.2021, assessee filed application under section 154 requesting ... allow the claim of foreign tax credit However, the AO (CPC) rejected the application of assessee by not giving claim of foreign tax credit at Rs. 12,38,077/- and raised the demand of Rs. 16,08.742/-. Aggrieved with the rejection of rectification application, the Assessee filed an Appeal before

Shri Krishnamoorthy Ezhilarasan, Chennai vs. ITO, Int. Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2101/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS

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

assessee’s appeal on merits. 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) denying the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) as claimed by the assessee. Brief facts are that the assessee filed his original return of income (RoI) for AY 2018-19 u/s.139 ... considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Short question in this appeal is whether assessee is entitled to foreign tax credit even when form number 67 required to be filed according to the provisions of rule 128 (9) of the Income Tax Rules

Vijayaraghavan Sundararaman, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1818/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Balani Vaidyanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90A

wherein he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) held that denial of foreign tax credit claim by the assessee in the intimation u/s. 143(1) is proper and therefore he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Therefore in a nutshell, the situation is that ... assessee against the intimation passed u/s. Page 3 of 5 143(1) of the Act directing the AO to allow the foreign tax credit to the assessee, but when assessee filed another appeal against the rectification order in intimation u/s. 143(1), the appellate order was passed

Antrix Corporation Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1041/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gunashekar, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40ASection 90A

Appellant. The Ld NFAC erred in not granting full relief to the Appellant despite having appreciated the correct legal position Approx that Foreign Tax Credit is allowable Rs. 36,48,394/- even in cases of delayed filing of Form (Excluding 67, and in doing so failed to follow interest) binding ... intimation dated 30/03/2021 on 27/06/2024. After going through the intimation, the assessee came to know that the CPC had denied the foreign tax credit u/s. 90A of the Act inspite of the fact that the assessee Page 3 of 6 had filed Form 67 in time. The assessee challenged

Sanjeev Sivasankaran Menon, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP

Section 143(1)Section 90

decided in this appeal is whether the disallowance made by the CPC which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in respect of the foreign tax credit paid in the other country is correct or not. Admittedly, the assessee had paid tax on the income in foreign countries for which ... remitting this issue to the file of the AO to verify the Form 67 and if found correct, grant the relief of foreign tax credit to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court

Shahid Jamal Ansari, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1252/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: the due date of filing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed a petition under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with relevant Form No. 67 filed on 21-05-2024, and the A.O. passed the order under Section 154 of the Act, on 10-01-2025 and denied FTC on the ground of delayed filing of Form No. 67 in terms of Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

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

return of income for A.Y. 2023-24 on 28-07-2023, declaring total income of Rs. 1,85,38,265/- and claimed Foreign Tax Credit (for short “FTC”) of Rs. 21,58,266/- in respect of taxes paid in the USA and France. The return of income filed ... allow the credit for FTC as per law. Therefore, she submitted that the A.O. may be directed to allow credit for foreign tax credit on the basis of Form No. 67 filed by the assessee. 4 Shahid Jamal Ansari 6. The Learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue Shri TV Vamshidhar

Bidyut Prakas Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2016/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), has erred in confirming the order under section 154 read with section 143(1) without allowing Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) amounting to Rs. 6,39,970 irrespective of the fact that the same was duly claimed in the income tax return ... confirming the order under section 154 read with section 143(1) without taking into consideration the fact that Form 67 in relation to Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) was duly filed before the last date for filing of the income tax return. 3. That on facts as well

Dipti Jagdish Satwani, Mumbai vs. AO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3669/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. BalajiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

ADDL/JCIT(A)] has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Assessment Year 2023-2024 Officer, CPC (Ld. AO) of not allowing Foreign Tax Credit (‘FTC’) of Rs.3,36,850 allowable as per Section90 of the Act read with Article 25 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ... relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, resident individual had filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-2024, claiming foreign tax credit of INR.3,36,850/- under Section 90 of the Act read with Article 25 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA. While

Puneet Khanna, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3046/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shri Puneet Khanna Vs. Income Tax Officer 8/51, Ramesh Nagar Ward-3(1) New Delhi Gurgaon Pan: Aajpk7067L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. R. R. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order

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

only reason for rejecting the claim of the Assessee that filing of Form No. 67 on time is mandatory to claim benefit of foreign tax credit. 8. An identical issue has been decided by the tribunal in the case of Brinda Rama Krishna in ITA No. 454/Bang/2021 for AY.2018-19, vide ... income earned for services rendered in Australia for the period from December 2017 to March 2018 to tax in India. The Assessee claimed foreign tax credit ("FTC") for taxes paid in Australia. 3. There is no dispute that the Assessee is entitled to claim FTC. Rule 128 of the Income

Loreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 25 to 35 including 27(a) are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6623/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 4Section 92Section 928Section 92C

gorund of appeal is treated as dismissed being infructuous. 15 L’Oreal India Privatse Limited 10. Ground No. 25 to 35 relates to foreign tax credit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is not allowed credit of foreign tax, the assessee has filed an application under section ... seeking correction of double taxation of amount chargeable under section 41 of Rs. 55,25,788/- and on relief of foreign tax credit of Rs. 14,46,220/-, copy of such application is available on page no. 2514 of paper book. Considering the submission of both the parties

Technip India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Spl Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 9852/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

learned AO has erred in not providing credit of tax deducted at source amounting to INR 2,35,51,658 and foreign tax credit of INR 13,25,393 while computing the assessed income.” Grounds in ITA No.9852/Del/2019: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Appellant. The TDS credit is reflecting in Form 26AS of the Appellant (refer page 239 to 256 of the paper book). Copies of foreign tax credit are at page nos. 257 to 261 of the paper books vide application dated 05.09.2017, the assessee requested Ld. AO for providing TDS credit

Technip India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

ITA 6390/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Yishu GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 250Section 92C

Dhritiman Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 542/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

Center ('CPC') for the aforesaid assessment year on the following grounds: Shri Dhritiman Roy Page 2 of 12 2. Denial of claim of Foreign tax credit u/s 90 of the Act 2.1 The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)'] is contrary to law, facts and circumstances ... case. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) has failed to understand that the assessee is entitled to claim foreign tax credit as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') between India and the host jurisdiction even if a Form 67 is filed beyond the due date. 2.3 The learned

Narendra Sharadchandra Khandekar, Usa vs. DCIT, Cir-22, Pune

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

ITA 1188/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) confirming the disallowance of foreign tax credit of Rs.32,73,316/- by the Assessing Officer / CPC in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of delay ... impugned assessment year on 31.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,93,39,860/-. The CPC while processing the return did not grant the foreign tax credit of Rs.32,73,316/- since the assessee did not upload Form No.67. 4. The assessee file an appeal which was dismissed

Rinki Shashikant Gandhi, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

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

ITA 546/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.545/Ahd/2025 & 546/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Respectively Rinki Shahikant Gandhi Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ 19, Kalpana Society Income-Tax V/S. Race Course Circle Circle-2(1)(1) Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abypg 0971 B (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/Jcit (A)-7, Mumbai, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 29/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2020-21 & 2021-2022. Since Common Facts & Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.545/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2020-21 Is Taken As A Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

following grounds of appeal: “1) The CPC, in its intimation order under Section 143(1) has not allowed the appellant's claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) solely due to the delay in submitting Form 67. However, the denial of FTC based purely on procedural grounds is unwarranted ... merely on procedural lapses. 3) As CPC has assessed income from Kenya, then he must have allowed corresponding tax credit FTC. Not allowing Foreign Tax Credit constitutes procedural delay only. Lately Form 67 is filed which is apparently on record. 4) The CIT (Appeals) has erred in understanding the facts

Rinki Shashikant Gandhi, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

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

ITA 545/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

Bhel Lcc Society Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bhel Lcc Society Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaatb6430D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Sai Keerthana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Sri Sai KeerthanaFor Respondent: : Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 270ASection 36

relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act denied the claim of Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.37,63,898/-. The Assessing Officer noted that for the year under consideration, the assessee filed Form-67 on 10/02/2021 after ... date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of Foreign Tax Credit and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The concluding part of the assessment order is as under: “Therefore, the assessee claimed

Shri. Giridhar Chidanamarri, Villivakkam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 17(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1824/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Giridhar Chidanamarri Income Tax Officer, No.21/32 Sri Kara Flats, Non-Corporate Ward-17(6), Kaveri Street, Villivakkam, Chennai. Tamil Nadu – 600 049. [Pan: Adspg2451L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Sonali, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Veeramany K, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Sonali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Veeramany K, IRS

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

from time to time. ITA No.1824 /Chny/2025 2.0 The only issue raised by the assessee through the present appeal is the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) to it of Rs.2,39,316/- claimed u/s 90 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel of the assessee submitted that the same has been ... Thus, the Hon’ble Bench has held as under:- “……3. Upon perusal of case records, it could be seen that the assessee claimed foreign tax credit of Rs.25.08 Lacs in return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 30-10- 2020. The assessee revised the income

Mithlesh Ashok Thukral, Pune vs. ITO Ward 13(4), Pune

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

ITA 840/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 249Section 250

Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) assessing the total income at Rs.1,26,83,380/-. In the said intimation, the foreign tax credit was not allowed to the extent of Rs.9,63,373/- in respect of the foreign income. The date of service of order ... position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) against the denial of foreign tax credit by the CPC. 5 9. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported

Nitin Rajaram Dhane, Satara vs. The DCIT Citrcle, Satara

In the result, for all the reasons discussed, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

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

erred in law and on facts in upholding intimation u/s 143(1) dated 31/05/2022 passed by CPC Bangalore thereby denying the foreign tax credit of Rs.6,15,561/- pertaining to the foreign sourced salary income of Rs.32,87,214 which is doubly taxed, i.e., in USA as well as India ... time allowed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The CPC vide its Order u/s 143(1) has disallowed assessee’s claim for Foreign Tax credit. 4.4 In this case in the Order u/s 143(1) of the Act , the CPC has not given any reason for the disallowance of assessee