Just a moment...
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 could be denied merely because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date prescribed under Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, notwithstanding the claim under section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the applicable DTAA.
Analysis: The claim for foreign tax credit arose from tax paid abroad on income also offered to tax in India. The Court followed the view that Rule 128(9) is meant to regulate the manner of furnishing Form No. 67 and does not create a substantive disallowance for delayed filing. The credit under section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the treaty provision, is a substantive relief and cannot be defeated only by non-compliance with a procedural timeline, particularly when the form was eventually filed and the relevant details were available for verification.
Conclusion: The delayed filing of Form No. 67 did not justify denial of foreign tax credit. The assessee's claim was allowed and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the credit in accordance with law and the applicable DTAA.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural time limit for furnishing Form No. 67 does not extinguish the substantive entitlement to foreign tax credit where the treaty and section 90 confer the benefit and the rule does not expressly provide disallowance for delay.