TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants Foreign Tax Credit claim, emphasizing DTAA provisions over domestic law</h1> <h3>Shri. Sanjiv Gopal Versus ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru</h3> Shri. Sanjiv Gopal Versus ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru - TMI Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) despite delayed filing of Form No. 67.2. Interpretation of Rule 128(9) regarding mandatory filing deadlines.3. Interaction between Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and Income Tax Act provisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) despite delayed filing of Form No. 67:The assessee, an individual with salary income from the Netherlands, claimed FTC of Rs. 7,61,129 under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act and the India-Netherlands DTAA. The claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date specified under Section 139(1). The assessee argued that the filing of Form No. 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory, citing precedents where delayed filing did not result in disallowance of FTC. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, emphasizing that Rule 128(9) does not explicitly disallow FTC for delayed filing of Form No. 67 and that DTAA provisions override procedural rules.2. Interpretation of Rule 128(9) regarding mandatory filing deadlines:The first appellate authority and the AO held that Rule 128(9) mandates filing Form No. 67 by the due date under Section 139(1) for claiming FTC. The Tribunal, however, referred to the ITAT Bangalore decision in Brinda Rama Krishna, which concluded that Rule 128(9) is directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural requirements should not nullify substantive rights, and the word 'shall' in Rule 128(9) does not imply mandatory compliance that would disallow FTC for delayed filing.3. Interaction between Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and Income Tax Act provisions:The Tribunal highlighted that Section 90 of the Income Tax Act and the India-Netherlands DTAA provide relief from double taxation, and these provisions override procedural rules like Rule 128(9). The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's stance that DTAA provisions prevail over domestic law to the extent they are more beneficial to the taxpayer. The Tribunal concluded that the procedural non-compliance of filing Form No. 67 by the due date should not result in disallowance of FTC, thus directing the AO to allow the FTC claim.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the AO to grant the FTC claim, reinforcing the principle that procedural delays should not negate substantive tax reliefs provided under DTAA and the Income Tax Act. The decision underscores that procedural rules should aid, not obstruct, the implementation of substantive legal rights.
TaxTMI 