Foreign Tax Credit filing delay and treaty dividend rate issues resolved in favour of the assessee.

Foreign Tax Credit could not be denied merely because Form No. 67 was filed late, as Rule 128 was treated as directory and the delayed form remained available for verification; the assessee was therefore entitled to the credit. Dividend income from a U.S. company had to be taxed at the treaty-prescribed ceiling under Article 10 of the India-USA DTAA, and the residual dividend rate of 25% of the gross amount prevailed over the higher domestic rate applied in processing; the assessee was accordingly entitled to treaty relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Foreign Tax Credit could be denied merely because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date; (ii) Whether dividend income from a U.S. company could be taxed at 30% instead of the treaty rate of 25%.

Issue (i): Whether Foreign Tax Credit could be denied merely because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date.

Analysis: The claim for Foreign Tax Credit was supported by Form No. 67, though the form was filed belatedly. The governing provision in Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as applied by judicial precedent, was treated as directory and not mandatory. On that basis, the delayed filing of Form No. 67 could not by itself defeat the substantive claim for credit where the form was available for verification.

Conclusion: The denial of Foreign Tax Credit on the ground of delayed filing of Form No. 67 was unsustainable, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether dividend income from a U.S. company could be taxed at 30% instead of the treaty rate of 25%.

Analysis: Article 10 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement prescribes a capped rate of tax on dividends. The applicable clause for the facts of the case was the residual category, under which the dividend income could be taxed only at 25% of the gross amount. Since the treaty rate was specifically provided, it prevailed over the domestic rate applied in processing the return.

Conclusion: Taxation of the dividend income at 30% was incorrect, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on both substantive issues, namely Foreign Tax Credit and the correct treaty rate applicable to dividend income, resulting in complete relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement relating to filing of Form No. 67 cannot defeat Foreign Tax Credit when it is directory in nature, and where a tax treaty prescribes a lower ceiling rate on dividend income, that treaty rate governs over the domestic rate.

---