Which cases are most cited on Section 128?

Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT (460 ITR 615) — 50 citing judgments; Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (207 ITR 1) — 25 citing judgments; Rakesh Singh v. ACIT (26 Taxmann.com 240) — 19 citing judgments; Muralikrishna Vaddi v. ACIT/Dy.CIT (142 Taxmann.com 32) — 12 citing judgments; Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (49 Taxmann.com 208) — 9 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 128?

BharatTax indexes 27 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 128 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 128 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 128 of the Income Tax Act?

Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT (460 ITR 615) is the decision most relied on for Section 128, cited in 50 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.

The decision most relied on for Section 128 is Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT (460 ITR 615), cited in 50 of the 27 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 128

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.

Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT

207 ITR 1 · 1994 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

When a statute prescribes a specific method for exercising a power, that power must be exercised only in the manner prescribed.

Rakesh Singh v. ACIT

26 Taxmann.com 240 · 2012 · Reported

citing judgments

A Commissioner is not justified in not admitting and adjudicating claims made by an appellant under sections 54B and 54F, especially when the Bangalore Tribunal's decision in Rakesh Singh v. ACIT (2012) is relevant.

Muralikrishna Vaddi v. ACIT/Dy.CIT

142 Taxmann.com 32 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

Furnishing Form 67 before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) is mandatory for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC).

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

49 Taxmann.com 208 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

K. Rajiv v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax

98 Taxmann.com 418 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Sanjiv Gopal v. ADIT

198 ITD 411 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

ITO v. Smt. Mandira D. Vakharia

250 ITR 432 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

Trib.), Priya Savina Murzello v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

148 Taxmann.com 472 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

Power and Energy Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

159 Taxmann.com 645 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 128

Sinder Pal S/O Late Sh. Ram Sarup vs. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj, New Delhi & Anr

Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed on the ground of

W.P.(C)-3002/2021HC Delhi16 Sept 2026

Bench: The Appellate Tribunal Under Section 129A Of The Customs Act, 1962 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’]. Signed By:Jai Narayan Signing Date:16.09.2026 16:59:39 Signature Not Verified

Section 108Section 114Section 128Section 129A

Mohd Arif vs. Commissioner of Customs

W.P.(C)-5411/2026HC Delhi02 Sept 2026

Section 108Section 128

Fahim Ahmad vs. Commissioner of Customs

W.P.(C)-17561/2025HC Delhi02 Sept 2026

Section 108Section 124

Irfan vs. Commissioner of Customs

Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed

W.P.(C)-16386/2025HC Delhi02 Sept 2026

Section 108Section 111Section 128

Nitin Khurana, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5264/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90

Nobuhiro Watabe, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Ncw-17(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3179/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3179/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Mahendra Kumar Pandya, Indore vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Ind, Indore

ITA 343/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

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

Soumik Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1508/KOL/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant filed statement of computation of income claiming tax relief of Rs.2,20,926/- (foreign tax credit) instead of Rs.5,22,964/- as claimed in his revised return of income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the Form 67 was not filed in time. In our opinion the foreign tax credit cannot be denied mere for the reason of late filing of form 67. We note that the case is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate Benches

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90Section 90(2)

Shri Sarth Kumar Sekkanor Murugesan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3067/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3067/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2021-22 V. Shri Sarth Kumar Sekkanor Ito, Murugesan, Non-Corporate Ward-22(4), No.1, Thendral Avenue, West Gandhi Tambaram. Nagar, Avadi, Tiruvallur Chennai 600054 Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Eiups6478E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.S.Vigneshanand, CAFor Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Sandeep Karanam, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2124/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Ajay V Hande, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Karthikeyan Chelladurai Madasamy, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 2619/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2619/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 V. Karthikeyan Chelladurai Mandasamy, The Ito, No.32, Metha Nagar Main Road, Non-Corporate Circle-22(1), Mahal Lakshmi Nagar, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram – 600 073. [Pan: Anppm 6391K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 90

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

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

Rajesh Venkatesh Helavar, Bengaluru, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 866/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Kirath Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

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

Nagarajan Shapoorna, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Madurai

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

ITA 812/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.812/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Nagarajan Shapoorna, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2A, Vp Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Non Corporate Ward 1(7), Visalakshipuram, Madurai 625 014. Madurai. [Pan:Djwps7535G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasiram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Gurugram For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer Towards Foreign Tax Credit Claimed At ₹.1,82,847/- Under Section 90/90A Of 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasiram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

Chathadi Krishnan Parvathi, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncc-1, Madurai

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

ITA 932/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 932/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 Ms. Chathadi Krishnan The Income Tax Officer, Parvathi, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 1, Flat No.9, Block-B, Madurai Swagath Residency, 708-A, 17Th Cross Street, Anna Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. Pan: Clypp 0358P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Kvsk Bhavana, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025

For Appellant: Ms. KVSK Bhavana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT

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

Vivek Kaul, New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), Udaipur

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

ITA 668/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalcit(A), Mr. Vivek Kaul, Udaipur. Mercantile House-15, Vs. Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi-110001. Pan-Aiepk8894Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/05/2025

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

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

Kalyanasundaram Ramasubramanyam, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3322/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ranganathan Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

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