Section 91 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.160

Section 91 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 160 (Countries with which no agreement exists) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 160 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 91 is PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala (391 ITR 218), cited in 228 of the 252 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 91

PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala
391 ITR 218 · 2017 · High Court
228
citing judgments

Income from shares and securities held by banks as stock-in-trade constitutes business income, hence Section 14A disallowance is not attracted. Further, any disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year.

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.

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.

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT
390 ITR 271 · 2017 · High Court
34
citing judgments

State tax paid in a foreign country is not allowable as a deduction when computing total world income. Foreign tax credit can be claimed only as per the prescribed procedure, not as an expenditure.

PCIT v. Punjab National Bank
140 Taxmann.com 131 · 2022 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not attracted, and dividend income cannot be disallowed, when shares are held as stock-in-trade by banks, with the primary purpose of trading for profit. This applies even if the shares were acquired through an IPO.

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT (Appeals) NFAC
145 Taxmann.com 235 · 2022 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

The ITAT held that failure to file Form 67 by the due date for filing the return of income is not fatal to the claim for foreign tax credit. The appellate authority can condone the delay in filing Form 67.

Judgments on Section 91

Preetha Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 305/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.305/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Preetha Reddy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 1A, Jhavar Plaza, Nungambakkam Income Tax High Road, Chennai 600 034. Central Circle 3(1), [Pan:Aaepr5656F] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-1, Chennai Dated 30.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 284 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit By Stating As Under: “3. I State & Submit That My Case Has Been Handled By Mrs. K. Rajalakshmi Who Is A Chartered Accountant By Profession & She Has Advised Me After Perusal Of The Order Of Pcit (Central), Chennai-1. She Was Of The Opinion

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Smt. Gunjahalli Renuka, Bellary vs. The ACIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1104/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarismt. Gunjahalli Renuka Vs Acit, Central Circle - 1(3) "Hrishikesh", Goldsmith Street Bengaluru Besides Indian Bank Bellary 593101 Pan – Abypr5731L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ii, Bangalore Dated 18.10.2022 For Ay 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Once Again Upholding The Assessment Of Rs.29,48,650/- As The Total Income Of The Appellant In The Set-Aside Proceedings, Without Appreciating The Real Purport Of The Order Of The Hon'Ble Itat Restoring The Matter Back To The File Of The Learned Cit[A] In The First Round Of Proceedings Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234Section 90