<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (10) TMI 429 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759830</link>
    <description>Foreign Tax Credit could not be denied merely for alleged delay in filing Form No. 67 under Rule 128, as the filing requirement was treated as directory rather than mandatory. The rejection of the claim in rectification proceedings was found mechanical because the material showing foreign tax paid was not properly examined. The rectification order under the Income-tax Act was therefore set aside, and the claim was remitted for fresh consideration on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 08:20:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 429 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759830</link>
      <description>Foreign Tax Credit could not be denied merely for alleged delay in filing Form No. 67 under Rule 128, as the filing requirement was treated as directory rather than mandatory. The rejection of the claim in rectification proceedings was found mechanical because the material showing foreign tax paid was not properly examined. The rectification order under the Income-tax Act was therefore set aside, and the claim was remitted for fresh consideration on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>