TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....less Appeal Centre ['CIT(A)' / 'NFAC']. 1.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the AO / CPC erred in denying the relief claimed u/s. 90 for the credit of foreign taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695 on the ground that the Appellant has claimed the credit of foreign taxes paid only in the revised return of income and not in the original return of income and also not filed Form No. 67 within the due date of filing of return of income prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the same was furnished alongwith the revised return of income and hence the action of the CIT(A) upholding the Order of the AO / CPC is incorrect, erroneous and not in accordance with the law. 1.3 The Appellant submits that the AO / CPC be directed to grant the relief u/s. 90 vis-a-vis the credit of foreign taxes paid of Rs. 3,33,695 and accordingly compute the total income and taxes thereon. 2. Re.: Interest u/s. 234B of the Act has been levied in excess: 2.1 The AO / CPC has erred in levying excessive interest u/s. 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2.2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not allowed to the assessee. Further, the assessee filed a rectification application before the CPC however, in the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated 31.05.2021 the claim of FTC of Rs. 3,33,695/- was denied to the assessee. 3. On further appeal against the rectification order, the Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the Form No. 67 was to be filed before the due date specified for furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act as provided under clause 9 of Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The grievance of the assessee before us is that FTC claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income filed on 28.03.2019 along with Form No. 67 was not allowed by the CPC while processing revised return and also in the rectification order dated 31.05.2021. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has declined the claim of the FTC mainly for the reason that Form No. 67 was not filed by the assessee on or before the due date specified for furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act as provided under clause 9 of Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present case, the returns were filed without FTC, however the same was filed before passing of the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of the Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the Act and it will always be directory in nature. This is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in the above cases when the returns were filed without furnishing Form 3AA and the same can be filed the subsequent to the passing of assessment order. 12. Further, in the present case, the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2021, but the FTC was filed on 02.02.2021. Thus, the respondent is supposed to have provided the due credit to the FTC of the petitioner. However, the FTC was rejected by the respondent, which is not proper and the same is not in accordance with law. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 is set aside. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court remits the matter back to the respondent to make reassessment by taking into consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. The responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee before allowing foreign tax credit following facts need to be ascertained: (i) The assessee has earned salary income of 54411 Singapore Dollar in calendar year 2017 and income of 192856 Singapore dollar in calendar year 2018 before 31.03.2018 which include salary income of 53286 Singapore dollar. The assessee has claimed that tax equivalent to Indian Rupees 73,403/- has been deducted in calendar year 2017 whereas tax of Rs. 260,291/- has been deducted corresponding to the calendar year 2018 by the Singapore tax authorities. In view of the above facts it is required to ascertain whether the income earned in Singapore has been added by the assessee in the return of income filed for the year under consideration in India. (ii) It needs to be verified whether the tax credit claimed pertained only to Singapore income included in the return of income filed in India for the year under consideration. (iii) It is also needs verification that the assessee has not claimed any refund for such taxes paid/withheld before the Singapore authorities. 4.3 In view of the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider the claim of the assessee subject to the....