TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee also derived income from Capital Gain in respect of property situated in USA. For the assessment year 2019-20, he filed his return of income in ITR-2 admitting total income of Rs. 6,18,77,640/- which includes Long Term and Short-Term capital gain derived outside India (in USA) amounting to Rs. 9,95,529/- and Rs. 2,00,63,505/- respectively as shown in the ITR -2 (Page No.23) and computation statement annexed thereto. The assessee originally offered the said capital gain in the return of income filed before the Authorities concerned in USA and paid tax equivalent to Indian Rupee of Rs. 58,69,594/. Copy of the return of income filed in USA was also submitted. The assessee while filing the return of income in ITR-2 claimed tax cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ign tax shall be allowed on furnishing the following documents by the assessee, namely:- (i) a statement of income from the country or specified territory outside India offered for tax for the previous year and of foreign tax deducted or paid on such income in Form No. 67 and verified in the manner specified therein; (ii) certificate or statement specifying the nature of income and the amount of tax deducted therefrom or paid by the assessee, (a) from the tax authority of the country or specified territory outside India, or (b) from the person responsible for deduction of such tax; or (c) signed by the assessee: Provided that the statement furnished by the assessee in clause (c) shall be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion of the Bench to the following decisions where Foreign Tax Credit has been allowed even though the certificate in Form 67 has not been filed along with the return of income: 1) ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Baburao Atluri vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 108 & 118/Hyd/2022 2) ITAT Bangalore in the case of Sri Brinda Ramakrishna vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 454/Bang/2021 3) ITAT Bangalore in the case of Shri Vardhan Vishwanath Vijaya vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA 379/Bang/2022. 4) ITAT Bangalore in the case of M/s. 42 Hertz Software India (P) Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No. 29/Bang/2021. 5) ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Sonakshi Sinha vs. CIT(A) NFAC in ITA No. 1704/Mum/2022. 6) ITAT Bangalore B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n filing of such Form 67 beyond the due date of filing of the return. Relevant observation of the Tribunal from Para 10 onwards read as under: "10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the AO in the instant case did not allow the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) on the ground that Form No. 67 has been filed beyond the due date of filing of the return. We find the NFAC upheld the action of the AO, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the proceeding paragraph. It is the submission of the ld.Counsel for the assessee that filing of foreign tax credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 8. We accordingly, hold that FTC cannot be denied to the assessee. Assessee is directed to file the relevant details/evidences in support of its claim. We thus remand this issue back to the Ld.AO to consider the claim of assessee in accordance with law, based on the verification carried out in respect of the supporting documents filed by assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes." 12. We further find, in the instant case, the delay in filing of the FTC certificate in Form-67 was explained to be due to non-receipt of the tax deduction certificate form the foreign deduct or from Zambia within time for which the said Form-67 was filed belatedly by 14 days. It was stated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same is mandatory and consequential in nature. Accordingly, the ground challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C is dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11^th May, 2023. ============= Document 1 1. The order of the learned CIT(A)/NFAC is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in not allowing the Foreign Tax Credit claimed u/s 90/90A of the I.T Act to the extent of Rs. 58,69,594/- as claimed in the return of income. 3. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have considered the fact that filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory and that therefore, the l....