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>Rule 128 Filing: Procedural Technicality Can't Deny Foreign Tax Credit When Substantive Merits Are Clear</h1> <h3>DCIT, Circle -19 (1), Delhi. Versus RST Mining and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.</h3> DCIT, Circle -19 (1), Delhi. Versus RST Mining and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:1. Whether the filing requirement of Form No. 67 under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is mandatory or directory for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under Sections 90/91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the denial of the FTC claim due to the belated filing of Form No. 67 is justified under the law.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Nature of Rule 128 Filing RequirementRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, mandates that Form No. 67, along with a certificate or statement, must be furnished on or before the due date specified for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. was cited, emphasizing that procedural law should aid substantive rights rather than obstruct them.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted Rule 128 as directory rather than mandatory, emphasizing that the primary purpose of the rule is to verify the merit of the FTC claim. The use of the word 'shall' in the rule was considered in this context, and the Tribunal concluded that the procedural requirement should not impede the substantive right to claim FTC.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that Form No. 67 was available with the Central Processing Centre (CPC) when the rectification application was decided, supporting the view that the procedural lapse did not affect the substantive claim's merit.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that procedural requirements should not defeat substantive rights, particularly when the foreign income was considered for taxation. The Tribunal found that the belated filing of Form No. 67 did not justify denying the FTC claim.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the filing requirement was mandatory, but the Tribunal, supported by various ITAT decisions, found that the procedural requirement should not override the substantive right to claim FTC.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that Rule 128 is directory, allowing the assessee's claim for FTC despite the belated filing of Form No. 67.2. Justification for Denial of FTC ClaimRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 90/91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provide relief from double taxation through FTC. The denial was based on non-compliance with Rule 128's procedural requirement.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that denying the FTC claim solely due to procedural non-compliance was unjustified, especially when the substantive right to relief under Sections 90/91 was not in dispute.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to entertain the FTC claim on merits, considering that Form No. 67 was available at the time of the rectification application.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that procedural requirements should facilitate, not hinder, substantive rights, particularly when the claim's merit was not in question.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument for mandatory compliance was countered by the Tribunal's reliance on ITAT precedents, which consistently held Rule 128 as directory.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in allowing the FTC claim despite the procedural lapse.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. laid down the proposition that procedural law should not be construed as mandatory and should only aid the claim of substantive right.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural requirements should not obstruct substantive rights, particularly in the context of claiming FTC under Sections 90/91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal determined that Rule 128 is directory in nature, allowing the assessee's FTC claim despite the belated filing of Form No. 67. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the FTC claim on merits.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found