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>ITAT allows Foreign Tax Credit despite delayed Form 67 filing under India-Thailand DTAA provisions</h1> <h3>Rahul Anand Versus ADIT CPC Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore, Karnataka</h3> Rahul Anand Versus ADIT CPC Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore, Karnataka - TMI Issues Involved:1. Procedural Requirements for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) Claim.2. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) vs. Income Tax Act.3. Judicial Hierarchy and Precedents.4. Principles of Natural Justice.5. Re-computation of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Procedural Requirements for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) Claim:The primary issue was whether the non-filing of Form 67 before the due date of filing the return of income disallows the claim for FTC. The assessee contended that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Notification No. 9 dated 19 September 2017, which mandates the filing of Form No. 67 for claiming FTC, is procedural and not substantive. The Tribunal found that Rule 128(9) does not explicitly provide for disallowance of FTC if Form No. 67 is filed late. It was concluded that filing Form No. 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory, and thus, the delay in filing should not extinguish the substantive right to claim FTC.2. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) vs. Income Tax Act:The assessee argued that the DTAA provisions override the Income Tax Act, as upheld by various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal agreed, reiterating that the DTAA provisions should prevail when they are more beneficial to the assessee. Article 23 of the India-Thailand DTAA was referenced, emphasizing that FTC should be allowed as per the DTAA, which supersedes the procedural requirements of the Income Tax Act.3. Judicial Hierarchy and Precedents:The assessee cited the jurisdictional ITAT Bench-B Kolkata decision in Sukhdev Sen Vs. ACIT, which supported the view that procedural delays in filing Form No. 67 should not preclude FTC claims. The Tribunal concurred with this precedent, reinforcing the principle that procedural requirements should not override substantive rights when judicial precedents support the assessee's position.4. Principles of Natural Justice:The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) did not adhere to the principles of natural justice by rejecting the rectification application without providing an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal noted that the procedural lapse in not filing Form No. 67 on time should not result in the denial of FTC, as it would contradict the principles of natural justice and fairness.5. Re-computation of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:The assessee challenged the re-computation of interest under Sections 234B and 234C, arguing that the denial of FTC affected the interest calculation. The Tribunal found that the denial of FTC was unjustified and directed the AO to allow the FTC, which would consequently affect the interest computation under these sections.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the AO to grant the FTC as per the DTAA between India and Thailand, and in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural delays should not negate the substantive rights provided under the DTAA and the Income Tax Act. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to judicial precedents and the principles of natural justice in tax assessments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
