Provident fund delay, foreign tax credit filing, and TDS mismatch: ITAT treated procedural defects as remandable and allowed substantive credit.

Employees' contribution to provident fund required fresh factual verification on the date of salary payment, so the matter was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with law. Delay in filing Form 67 was treated as procedural and directory, not a statutory ground to deny foreign tax credit, so the claim was restored for decision on merits after accepting the form. TDS credit could not be denied merely because the return mentioned an incorrect TAN where the tax was otherwise reflected in Form 26AS; the credit was directed to be allowed as per law. The appeals were thus disposed of by remand on the first two issues and relief on the third.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund for late deposit required fresh examination on the basis of the date of payment of salary; (ii) Whether delay in filing Form 67 could justify denial of foreign tax credit; (iii) Whether TDS credit could be denied merely because the assessee mentioned an incorrect TAN in the return despite reflection of the credit in Form 26AS.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund for late deposit required fresh examination on the basis of the date of payment of salary.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by the binding precedent on employees' contribution, but the request to consider the date of salary payment for computing delay was accepted as requiring factual verification. The matter was therefore sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and the relief was granted for statistical purposes.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in filing Form 67 could justify denial of foreign tax credit.

Analysis: The requirement of filing Form 67 before the return was treated as procedural and directory in nature, because Rule 128(9) does not prescribe disallowance of foreign tax credit for delayed filing. The claim was rejected at the threshold without examination on merits, so fresh consideration was directed.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to decide the foreign tax credit claim after accepting Form 67, and the relief was granted for statistical purposes.

Issue (iii): Whether TDS credit could be denied merely because the assessee mentioned an incorrect TAN in the return despite reflection of the credit in Form 26AS.

Analysis: The denial was found to be unjustified because the tax deducted was otherwise reflected in Form 26AS, and the mismatch in TAN was treated as a technical defect that should not defeat the substantive credit.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the TDS credit as per law.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with remand on the first two issues and a direction to grant TDS credit on the third issue, resulting in relief to the assessee to that extent.

---