Foreign tax credit cannot be denied merely for late Form No. 67 filing where the lapse is procedural, not substantive.

Foreign tax credit under section 90 is discussed as not being denied solely because Form No. 67 was filed after the rule 128(9) due date. The text states that the delayed filing was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive defect that extinguishes entitlement to credit. It further notes the view that rule 128(9) is directory and cannot override the statutory right to foreign tax credit under the Act and the applicable DTAA. On that basis, denial of credit for belated Form No. 67 filing is described as unjustified, with the assessee entitled to the credit.

---

---

Issues: Whether foreign tax credit under section 90 could be denied solely because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date prescribed under rule 128(9).

Analysis: The claim for foreign tax credit was rejected by the lower authorities only on the ground of delayed filing of Form No. 67. The Tribunal followed the consistent line of coordinate bench decisions and the view that delayed filing of Form No. 67 is a procedural lapse and not a substantive defect that extinguishes the entitlement to foreign tax credit. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that the relevant rule operates as a directory requirement and cannot override the statutory entitlement to credit under the Act and the applicable DTAA.

Conclusion: Denial of foreign tax credit merely for belated filing of Form No. 67 was unjustified. The assessee was held entitled to the foreign tax credit, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant it.

---