“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

Krishna Dalal, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed subject to direction

ITA 974/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

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

assessment year 2018-19. 2. The effective issue raised by assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the foreign tax credit. Page 2 of 6 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration, originally filed return ... revised return of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act as on 9th June 2020 wherein the claim of foreign tax credit for Rs. 1,85,150/- was disallowed. The assessee also filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act but same was also rejected

Nitesh Kekre, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 860/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 5

assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on account of delay and not providing the credit of foreign tax credit on the merit. Page 2 of 7 3. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, capital gain ... income earned outside India. The assessee against the tax liability claimed credit of foreign tax of Rs. 81,178/- only. The claim of foreign tax credit (FTC) was disallowed by the CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act for the reason that Form

Shri Rajarajan Nageshwar Rao, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Chennai

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

ITA 1746/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Sonali, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Anitha, Addl.CIT

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

under: I state that the ADDL/ JCIT(A)-1 vide order dated 28 January 2025 had dismissed my appeal seeking grant of foreign tax credit. Prior to the receipt of the CIT(A) order, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) vide rectification order u/s 154 of the Income tax ... dated 23 November 2024 allowed foreign tax credit (FTC), but due to an error in the income computation for the said AY, a demand was raised. Since the primary issue of FTC was already allowed by the JAO, I was of the bona fide belief that my grievance has been

Krishna Muniramaiah, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 435/COCH/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Krishna Muniramaiah .......... Appellant 728, 2Nd Cross Road, Hrbr Layout, 1St Block Kalyannagar S.O., Bangalore 560043 S.O. [Pan: Agapg9616Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle 3(3)(1), Bangalore .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Siddesh Nagraj Gaddi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)

processed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide intimation dated 30.03.2019 denying the credit for foreign tax credit on the ground that Form 67 was not filed within the prescribed time limit. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ... material available on record. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CPC was justified in denying the claim for foreign tax credit on the ground that Form 67, as required under rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, was not submitted before the due date specified

Saumitra Kumar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Circle 12, Pune, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1520/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1520/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Saumitra Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. Hig 111, Sector E, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024. Pan : Bcmpk7370J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naman Maloo (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Indore [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In, Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao(Cpc) In Disallowing The Credit Of Taxes Paid Outside India While Processing The Return Of Income (Foreign Tax Credit, "Ftc") Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Such Rejection Is Beyond The Purview Of Section 143(1). The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please

For Appellant: Shri Naman Maloo (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

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

confirming the action of ld. AO(CPC) in disallowing the credit of taxes paid outside India while processing the return of income (Foreign Tax Credit, "FTC") under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such rejection is beyond the purview of Section 143(1). The action ... illegal and arbitrary, and against the facts of the case. Relief may please 2 be granted by allowing the foreign tax credit, as its rejection being outside the purview of Section 143(1). 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) has erred in, confirming

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Evry India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 948/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 244ASection 90

compliance of a procedural provision. Therefore, the AO is directed to consider the claim of the appellant and if found correct, the foreign tax credit be allowed to the appellant. If such credit results in refund, the same be given to the appellant alongwith interest applicable u/s. 244A ... erred in not applying this legal position. 7. On the other hand, the learned AR argued that the assessee is eligible for foreign tax credit as the provision under India-Norway DTAA which the assessee cannot be deprived merely for the reason that same was not claimed through revised return

ACIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Thirumalai Chemicals Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this ground-3 of CO is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4945/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankaracit 8(3)(1), Mumbai Vs Thirumalai Chemicals Limited Plot No. 101/102, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Thirumalai House, Road No.29, Sion, Matunga, Mumbai-400 022 Pan: Aaact2015M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 90

246/Mum/2024 Thirumalai Chemicals Limited Ground 3 : 26. During the argument related to this ground, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.AO disallowing the foreign tax credit amounting to Rs. 51,07,610/- under sections 90 / 91 of the Act due to delay in filing form 67. The Ld.AR stated that ... No.454/Bang/2021 date of pronouncement 17.11.2021. 27. The Ld. DR stands in favour of the revenue authorities and stated that the foreign tax credit was disallowed on the ground of delay in filing form 67 and the assessee had not filed this form with the original return but was filed with

Shri. Vikram Dhondu Rao, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2558/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 244ASection 250Section 44ASection 90

taxable in India. Hence, the assessee offered salary income of Rs.76,00,800/- received from M/S PT Indoliberty Textiles, Indonesia and claimed the foreign tax credit (FTC) of Rs.15,20,710/-which was deducted as tax at source by the employer. 3.3 The AO while processing the return ... filing acknowledgement number 437052681010820. 3.4 The assessee also filed an application u/s 154 of the Act before the AO praying to allow the foreign tax credit vide rectification applications dated 02/02/2022, 13/02/2023 & 25/04/2023. However, the AO passed the order u/s 154 of the Act without considering assessee's application

Mr. Vikram Dhondu Rao, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2557/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 44ASection 90

case on merits even though the said decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. That the denial of foreign tax credit for non-filing of Form 67 within the due date specified by the statute does not fall under the preview of provisions of Section ... That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not allowing the foreign tax credit in accordance with Article 23(2) of the DTAA between India and Indonesia. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another, the appellant craves leave

Lakshmi Sundararajan, Chennai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

In the result, The appeal stand allowed’’

ITA 1336/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1336/Chny/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Lakshmi Sundararajan, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Flat S1, Arunachala Thendral, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), No.14, 8Th Cross Street, Chennai. Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. [Pan : Alpps0557G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

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

Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 28-11-2023 in the matter of intimation order u/s 143(1) passed on 18.03.2020 denying Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.3,82,049/- as claimed by the assessee u/s 90/91 of the Act. The same was denied for delay in filing of requisite Form ... Form 67 was filed by the assessee on 21.09.2018 after due date and lay claim on the credit. AO denied the claim of Foreign Tax Credit for the reason that the assessee company has failed to submit the Form 67 within the due date prescribed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Infosys Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act on the above incomes included in the profits of eligible SEZ units. 4. Foreign tax credit relating to income eligible for deduction under section 10AA and foreign tax credit in respect of foreign tax paid presently under dispute with Australian tax ... authorities 4.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to disallowance of foreign tax credit of Rs. 218,16,32,251 including Rs. 52,10,92,957 on account of foreign tax credit in respect of taxes presently under dispute with Australian tax authorities

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1532/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act on the above incomes included in the profits of eligible SEZ units. 3. Foreign tax credit relating to income eligible for deduction under section 10AA 3.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that foreign tax credit ... grant the relief concerned. ITA Nos.1531 & 1532/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 3 of 16 3.2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that foreign tax credit in respect of income on which deduction under section 10A / 10AA has been claimed has been allowed in appellant's own case

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1531/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1530/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 80A(5)

under section 10AA of the Act qua each unit individually and allowing for statistical purposes the assessee’s grounds in relation to (i) foreign tax credit for disputed Australian tax, (ii) deduction under section 80JJAA and (iii) grant of interest under section 244A. The ld. CIT(A) /NFAC, however dismissed ... time of hearing of the appeal with regard to the claim of deduction under section 37(1) of the Act in respect of foreign tax credit not eligible for relief under section 90 or 91 of the Act. 6. The ground No 1 is general in nature & does not require

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 881/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act on the above incomes included in the profits of eligible SEZ units. 4. Foreign tax credit relating to income eligible for deduction under section 10AA and foreign tax credit in respect of foreign tax paid presently under dispute with Australian tax ... authorities 4.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to disallowance of foreign tax credit of Rs.218,16,32,251 including Rs. 52,10,92,957 on account of foreign tax credit in respect of taxes presently under dispute with Australian tax authorities (ATO)) in respect

Prakash Narayanan, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 969/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT-DR

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

this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had furnished the supporting documents in respect of the foreign tax credit claimed and also field the revised form 67 while filing the revised return and therefore the assessee is entitled for the relief ... foreign tax credit as claimed in the revised form 67. The Ld.AR also filed a paper book enclosing the various documents and also the judicial precedence of the Hon’ble Page 3 of 5 Supreme Court as well as the other High Courts and prayed that the necessary relief

Grandhi Buchi Sanyasi Raju, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1098/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Grandhi Buchi Sanyasi Raju, Vs. Dcit, 25/1, Skip House, Circle – 3(1)(2), Museum Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Agapg1105G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Jagadish Jogi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31 .07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Jagadish Jogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 90

order vide DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077855182(1) dated 28.04.2025. 2. The sole issued raised by the assessee is with regard to Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) not given in terms of section 90/90A of the Act for not filing Form 67 along with the original return filed by the assessee ... case are that the assessee filed return of income on 01.08.2017 declaring income of Rs.3,83,49,150/- and claimed the foreign tax credit of Rs.27,39,914/- under section 90/90A of the Act. Subsequently, assessee has revised the original return of income on Page 2 of 7 17.09.2018 declaring

Raj Talreja, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

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

ITA 3419/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Raj Talreja Assistant Commissioner Of 101-102, Indraprastha Complex, Income Tax, Gurudwara, Udaipur, Vs. Circle-2, Rajasthan Rajasthan - 313001 (Pan : Aafpt7962D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

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

erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act.” 3. The only issue raised in this appeal is in respect of foreign tax credit denied by the ld. AO u/s. 90/90A on account of delay in filing Form 67. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee ... Bangalore-Trib.) and in Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi Vs. CIT in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 235] (Bangalore-Trib.), wherein it is held that where assessee claimed foreign tax credit and filed Form no. 67 after due date specified for furnishing return u/s. 139(1), non furnishing of form before due date specified

Sonali Verma, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(6), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 778/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.778/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Smt. Sonali Verma Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12 (6) Pan:Amnpv3410A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sk Chaturvedi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri SK Chaturvedi, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh Sr.AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 91

already been taxed in USA and therefore, the said income was not declared in the return of income and has also not claimed Foreign Tax Credit (FTC). Subsequently, the assessee filed her revised return of income u/s 139(5) on 23/02/2021 wherein the assessee declared the salary Page ... case of the assessee there was a TDS deducted by the Foreign Government to the extent of Rs.95,539/- which was claimed as Foreign Tax Credit in accordance with section 91 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) dated 22/03/2022 disallowed the claim

Anubhav Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1640/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1640/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Anubhav Singhal Income Tax Officer, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Vs. Ward-2(1)(1), F-26/124, Sector-7, Ghaziabad. Rohini, Delhi. Pan No.Cfbps6318P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250

amounting to Rs.106,217, where assessee has admittedly made “substantial” compliance in filing of FORM 67 so as to claim subject “FTC” (foreign tax credit). C. That the appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Ld. Counsel ... assessee, at the outset, referring to ground no. B of grounds of appeal submits that while processing the intimation u/s 143(1) Foreign Tax Credit of Rs.1,06,217/- was denied to the assessee for the reason that Form 67 claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) was not furnished along with