Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Taxpayer wins Foreign Tax Credit appeal despite late Form 67 filing under sections 90/90A and Rule 128</h1> <h3>M/s. Tessolve Semiconductor Private Limited Versus DCIT, Circle – 7 (1) (1), Bengaluru.</h3> M/s. Tessolve Semiconductor Private Limited Versus DCIT, Circle – 7 (1) (1), Bengaluru. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the appellate order and intimation under sections 250 and 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Principles of natural justice concerning section 143(1) of the Act.3. Denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under sections 90/90A of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Appellate Order and Intimation under Sections 250 and 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The assessee challenged the appellate order under section 250 and the intimation under section 143(1), contending that both were 'bad in law and liable to be quashed.' The appeal was directed against the order passed by the NFAC, which had denied the FTC claimed by the assessee due to the late filing of Form 67. The assessee argued that the revised return, including Form 67, was filed before the completion of assessment proceedings, thus complying with the procedural requirements.2. Principles of Natural Justice - Section 143(1):The assessee argued that the CPC erred by disallowing the FTC without issuing a communication as required under the proviso to section 143(1) and without providing an opportunity to respond. It was contended that the adjustments made by the CPC were not contemplated under section 143(1), rendering the intimation 'bad in law and liable to be deleted.'3. Denial of Foreign Tax Credit under Sections 90/90A:The primary issue was the denial of FTC amounting to Rs. 50,11,531 due to the late filing of Form 67. The assessee contended that the time limit prescribed under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is directory and not mandatory. It was argued that Rule 128 does not stipulate disallowance of FTC for non-filing or late filing of Form 67. The assessee cited the judgment of the Madras High Court in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy and other ITAT Bangalore decisions supporting the view that procedural non-compliance should not result in substantive disallowance of FTC.Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:The Tribunal considered the arguments, case laws, and materials presented by both sides. It noted that the revised return, including Form 67, was filed before the intimation under section 143(1). The Tribunal referred to the Co-ordinate Bench's decision in Sanjiv Gopal Vs. ADIT, which held that the filing of Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory. It emphasized that neither the Act nor the Rules explicitly provide for disallowance of FTC for late filing of Form 67. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's stance that procedural requirements should not override substantive rights.The Tribunal found that the assessee is entitled to FTC and directed the AO to allow the claim. It distinguished the case from the Vishakapatnam Bench decision, noting that in the present case, Form 67 was filed along with the return and not after a significant delay.Judgment:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities. It held that the assessee is entitled to FTC, and the AO was directed to allow the claim. The judgment was pronounced in the open court.Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision underscores the principle that procedural lapses should not negate substantive entitlements, aligning with higher judicial precedents and reinforcing the directory nature of procedural requirements under Rule 128.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found