Foreign tax credit allowed for US state taxes under Section 91 following Karnataka HC precedent in Wipro Ltd case

The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee regarding foreign tax credit claims for state taxes paid in the United States under Section 91. The tribunal held that both federal and state taxes are treated equally for foreign tax credit purposes, following the Karnataka HC precedent in Wipro Ltd. The Revenue's contention was rejected, with the tribunal directing the AO to compute the credit accordingly. The assessee's appeal was allowed, establishing that state taxes qualify for foreign tax credit under the India-USA DTAA.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issue in this appeal is the entitlement of the assessee to claim foreign tax credit for state taxes paid in the United States under Section 91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core legal questions considered include:

• Whether the provisions of Section 91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, apply to the assessee's claim for foreign tax credit concerning state taxes paid in the USA, despite the existence of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the USA.
• Whether the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 91, which allows credit for all income taxes paid abroad, including state taxes, irrespective of the DTAA.
• The applicability of judicial precedents and departmental circulars in determining the assessee's entitlement to foreign tax credit.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Applicability of Section 91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 91 provides relief from double taxation in cases where no DTAA exists between India and the other contracting state. The Tribunal's decision in Tata Sons Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax was cited, where it was held that Section 91 could apply even if a DTAA exists, provided it is more beneficial to the assessee.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that Section 91 is inapplicable due to the existing DTAA between India and the USA. It emphasized that Section 91 should be interpreted in a manner that is beneficial to the assessee, as per Section 90(2) of the Act and Circular No. 621, which clarifies that tax treaties should not disadvantage residents of a contracting state.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee derived salary income from the USA and paid both federal and state taxes. The Tribunal relied on the Tata Sons Ltd. decision, which supports the view that Section 91 does not distinguish between federal and state taxes for the purpose of foreign tax credit.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied Section 91 to allow the assessee's claim for foreign tax credit concerning state taxes paid in the USA, as the provision is more beneficial than the DTAA, which only allows credit for federal taxes.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument that Section 91 is inapplicable due to the DTAA, highlighting that the DTAA should not result in a less favorable outcome for the assessee compared to the domestic law.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to claim foreign tax credit under Section 91 for state taxes paid in the USA, as it is more beneficial than the relief provided under the DTAA.

2. Judicial Precedents and Circulars

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in M/s. Wipro Ltd. vs. ACIT, which supports the view that both federal and state taxes are eligible for foreign tax credit. It also considered the Tribunal's earlier decision in Manpreet Singh Gambhir vs. DCIT, which was in favor of the department.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's decision, giving precedence to a higher judicial forum's ruling over a coordinate bench's decision. It emphasized judicial discipline in adhering to the High Court's interpretation.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Karnataka High Court had already adjudicated the issue in favor of the assessee, which influenced its decision to allow the foreign tax credit for state taxes.

Application of Law to Facts: By applying the Karnataka High Court's ruling, the Tribunal ensured that the assessee's foreign tax credit claim was consistent with the higher judicial interpretation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal acknowledged the earlier contrary decision by a coordinate bench but prioritized the High Court's ruling, thereby resolving the conflict in favor of the assessee.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the assessee's entitlement to foreign tax credit for state taxes, following the Karnataka High Court's decision and emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated the principle that "the provisions of Section 91 are to be treated as general in application and these provisions can yield to the treaty provisions only to the extent the provisions of the treaty are beneficial to the assessee."

Core Principles Established: The Tribunal established that Section 91's relief for foreign taxes, including state taxes, is applicable even when a DTAA exists, provided it is more beneficial to the assessee. It also reinforced the principle that tax treaties should not disadvantage taxpayers compared to domestic law provisions.

Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, granting foreign tax credit for state taxes paid in the USA under Section 91, as it was more beneficial than the DTAA. It directed the Assessing Officer to compute the tax liability accordingly.

---