Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether foreign tax credit under section 90 could be denied merely because Form 67 was filed after the due date prescribed under Rule 128(9).
Analysis: The credit claimed related to tax paid in Finland and was supported by the India-Finland DTAA, particularly Article 22(2), which obliges India to allow credit for foreign tax subject to the treaty limit. Section 295(1) and section 295(2)(ha) empower the Board to frame procedural rules for granting relief, but the rule-making power does not authorise the creation of a substantive disqualification unless the Act or the treaty so provides. Rule 128 requires filing of Form 67 by the due date, but it does not expressly provide that delay extinguishes the claim to foreign tax credit. The filing requirement was therefore treated as procedural and directory, not mandatory. The credit was also available on the record before completion of the assessment, and the treaty benefit could not be defeated by a mere procedural lapse.
Conclusion: The denial of foreign tax credit for delayed filing of Form 67 was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the relief under section 90.
Ratio Decidendi: A treaty-based foreign tax credit cannot be denied for breach of a procedural filing requirement unless the Act, the treaty, or the expressly makes timely compliance a condition precedent to the credit.