← All Phrases

“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
87
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
62
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
50
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
37
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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Muralikrishna Vaddi, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 494/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.494/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Muralikrishna Vaddi Circle 3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan: Awmpv9717D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Chakradhar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 04/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri A Chakradhar, CA (Hybrid)For Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(9)Section 90

grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 6 ITA No.494 of 2024 Muralikrishna Vaddi 3. The learned DR has submitted that the assessee claimed Foreign Tax Credit amounting to Rs.37,63,898/- in the return of income without filing Form-67 within the due date of filing the return. Therefore ... claim of the assessee on Foreign Tax Credit was in contravention of the provisions of Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 r.w.s. 90/90A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and amounts to mis-representation of the facts as contemplated in section 270A

Srikrishnan Ramakrishnan Chitoor, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(9), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3129/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

which action of the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) was confirmed by denying Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) u/s.90 of the Act. Srikrishnan Ramakrishnan Chitoor :: 2 :: 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual, who earned, inter alia

Jayalakshmy Venkataraman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(6), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3128/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

which action of the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) was confirmed by denying Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) u/s.90 of the Act. Jayalakshmy Venkataraman :: 2 :: 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual has earned, inter alia, income

Sahil Jindal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-47(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4615/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4615/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sahil Jindal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O M/S Raj Kumar & Associates, L- Ward-47(1), 7A, Lgf, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akgpj8905P Assessee By: Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca & Sh. Suraj Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties on merits wherein the learned lower authorities have denied foreign tax credit relief u/s 90/90A to the assessee amounting to Rs.3,98,842/- for want of timely filing of relevant Form 67. Case law V. Krishnamoorthy Vs. PCIT (2024) 169 taxmann.com

Aarti Sharma, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram

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

ITA 2473/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 89Section 90

amounting to Rs.4,92,346/-. The assessee also filed Form 67 declaring income from outside India amounting to Rs.22,35,787/- and claimed foreign tax credit outside India amounting to Rs.4,92,346. Thereafter, CPC has passed intimation order on 22.03.2022 disregarding the relief u/s 89 of the Act amounting

Kumar Ranganathan, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 20/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Harish Sampangi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-8 Mumbai wherein the assessee’s claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) amounting to Rs.1,58,200/- was disallowed solely on the technical ground of late submission of Form 67 while passing intimation ... procedural lapses is well recognized in judicial precedents. In view of the above the ld. A.R. for the assessee prayed to grant the foreign tax credit of Rs.1,58,200/- for AY 2021-22, recognizing that the delayed filing of Form 67 was a procedural lapse with no bearing

Indira Veluri, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2513/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Pavan Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department
Section 250Section 253(5)

declaring total income of Rs.27,48,790/- whereby the assessee claim foreign tax credit of Rs.6,62,622/- paid in United States of America(USA). Thereafter, the return of income was processed and accordingly the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 22.3.2022 was passed by the ADIT ... accepting the total income as declared by the assessee in her return of income but disallowed the claim of foreign tax credit amounting to Rs.6,62,622/- and raised a demand of Rs.7,75,600/-by levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. As submitted

Maria Lourders Almazan Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6752/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Maria Lourdes Almazan Khan Ito 42(2)(4) 83, Falcons Crest Kautilya Bhavan 73, Gd Ambedkar Marg, Parel Vs. Bkc, Bandra-E East, Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Abppk4522K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anil GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Addl./JCIT (A) erred in upholding the rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Act by CPC, thereby denying the Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 4,78,705/- u/s. 90/90A of the Act.. 3. The Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) has erred in failing to consider the appellant's contention ... During the appeal proceedings before the ITAT, Ld. AR of the appellant has argued that filing of Form No. 67 to claim Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is only directory in nature and not mandatory, even though the word used in 2 Maria Lourdes Almazan Khan Rule 128(9) is “shall

Pukhraj Singh Gujral, Chandigarh vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Final Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

professional income from Canada, on which taxes amounting to Rs. 10,32,088/- were paid in Canada. The assessee claimed relief for this foreign tax credit (FTC) under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by filing Form No. 67 on 27.08.2022, after the due date for filing

Aditya Somani, Hooghly vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1897/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 1Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 6Section 90

that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2021-22, declared double tax salary of INR 4,80,293/-and claimed foreign tax credit of INR 1,13,925/- as the assessee was on assignment to Reckitt Benckiser Malayasia SDN BHD. Form no. 67 was also filed ... after adjustment of refund of INR 82,073/-] has been raised by the assessee on account of non-grant of foreign tax credit of INR 1,13,925/- and by not considering the From no. 67. 4. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before

Bosch Global Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1696/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: and Smt. Pratibha R – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT
Section 10ASection 32(1)(iia)

assessee that is to say that it is diversion by overriding title at stage of earning profit itself. 9. However, the foreign tax credit can be claimed u/s 90/91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The section specifically mentions the procedure by way of which relief can be claimed ... same was claimed as an expenditure. The Revenue authority disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that foreign tax credit can be claimed as per the procedure laid down under section 90/91 of the Act. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has not claimed

Pranita Das, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 42/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kuman Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 90

sole issue raised by the assessee pertains to the learned CIT(A)’s decision for not granting the benefit of foreign tax credit amounting to ₹ 8,38,602/- despite acknowledging that the assessee is entitled to such credit. 3. The Centralized Processing Center (CPC) denied the foreign tax credit claimed ... belatedly—beyond the due date for filing the income tax return. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) acknowledged that the benefit of foreign tax credit could not be denied merely because Form 67 was filed belatedly. In support of this, the ld. CIT(A) referred to a series

Pranita Das, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 41/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kuman Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 90

sole issue raised by the assessee pertains to the learned CIT(A)’s decision for not granting the benefit of foreign tax credit amounting to ₹ 8,38,602/- despite acknowledging that the assessee is entitled to such credit. 3. The Centralized Processing Center (CPC) denied the foreign tax credit claimed ... belatedly—beyond the due date for filing the income tax return. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) acknowledged that the benefit of foreign tax credit could not be denied merely because Form 67 was filed belatedly. In support of this, the ld. CIT(A) referred to a series

Bhupendra Bora, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 230/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajkpb5486A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 90

this appeal is as to whether the Learned JCITA was justified in upholding the action of the Learned AO in denying the foreign tax credit of Rs 5,72,956/- for the reason that Form No. 67 was filed Bhupendra Bora beyond the due date of filing the return ... declaring total income of Rs. 47,36,790/- and claimed relief under Section 90/ 90A of the Act on account of foreign tax credit of Rs. 5,72,956/-. The said revised return was also processed by the Learned CPC under Section

Abhinav Limaye, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO Ward 13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2641/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2641/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhinav Limaye, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru. B-605, Sai Marigold, Rahatani Road, Pimple Saudagar, Pune- 411027. Pan : Aclpl5320P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A), Udaipur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having Income From Salary, House Property & Income From Other Sources & Has Furnished Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The It Act

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

worked in United States of America (USA) and was paid certain amount in USD and has also paid taxes over there for which Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) certificate of Rs.1,17,406/- in Form No.67 was issued to him. Ld. AR further submitted that the fact of FTC of Rs.1 ... condonation of delay - Ecoboard Industries Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune ITA Nos. 1148 to 1151/PUN/2024 order dated 17.01.2025. 2. Allowability of Foreign Tax Credit - Nandkumar Chandra vs. ITO, Ward-13(1), Pune ITA No. 2329/PUN/2024 order dated 4 23.12.2024 and Sonakshi Sinha vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

Mukeshkumar Amrutlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 805/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 90

solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form 67 (Statement of income from a country or specified territory outside India and Foreign Tax Credit) despite of the fact that filing of the said form is just a procedural requirement. 3. Ld. JCIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances ... case are as under: 2. The Ld.AR submitted that the only issue that arises in the present appeal is regarding denial of foreign tax credit claimed by assessee u/s. 90 amounting to Rs.8,03,598/- in respect of foreign taxes paid outside India in USA. It is submitted that

Sridharan Venkatanarayanan, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Sridharan Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Venkatanarayanan Income Tax, Circle 12(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bgaps6316N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A V. Balaji राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A V. BalajiFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 91

learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the CPC while processing the return of income has denied the credit of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) paid by the assessee on the salary income received from Shell Gas, Iraq. The learned CIT (A) have also dismissed the claim of the assessee ... 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

Madhu Khatri, Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 173/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 90

Form 67 with the return of income, the CPC, Bangalore while processing the return of income of the assessee denied the claim of foreign tax credit. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the CPC, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and claimed the credit of foreign tax paid ... entitled to the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, following the binding precedents, we here by direct the AO to allow benefit of Foreign Tax Credit subject to such enquiries and verifications as may be considered expedient.” 8. Respectfully following the verdict of Coordinate Bench, we hereby restore the matter

Sumit Sethi, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 1339/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Page 12] which laid down the ratio that Rule 128(9) of Income Tax Rules, 1962, does not provide for disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit in case of delay in filing Form 67, and filing of Form 67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement. In the said case, assessee ... reproduced for ready reference, the same reads as under:- ‘’Further it is also notice that in the Form 67 the amount of foreign tax credit claimed is mentioned as ‘----’ in the forms of the assessment year 2018-19 as well as assessment year 2019-20. The "credit claimed" is required

Sumit Sethi, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 1338/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Page 12] which laid down the ratio that Rule 128(9) of Income Tax Rules, 1962, does not provide for disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit in case of delay in filing Form 67, and filing of Form 67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement. In the said case, assessee ... reproduced for ready reference, the same reads as under:- ‘’Further it is also notice that in the Form 67 the amount of foreign tax credit claimed is mentioned as ‘----’ in the forms of the assessment year 2018-19 as well as assessment year 2019-20. The "credit claimed" is required