2025 (1) TMI 694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orm 67 has not been filed within the due date. This requirement can never be met as a) Form 67 is prescribed vide Rule 128. b) Rule 128 was inserted by Eighteenth Amendment to Income Tax Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 i.e., the said rule is relevant from the AY 2018-19. c) The procedure for filing form 67 with the requirement that it shall precede filing of return of income, was issued vide notification no. 9 dated, 19-Sep-2017. d) The return was filed on 05-Aug-2017, the due date for filing the return was 05-Aug-2017 and form 67 was notified on 19-Sep-2017. 2. Without prejudice to the above contention, with the filing of form 67 on 05-Apr-2019 vide ack no. 461884540050419, disallowance of foreign....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eign country. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that even though, the form 67 was filed later on, the assessee made the claim in the return of income filed by him which was filed in time and therefore prayed to allow the appeal. The Ld.AR further submitted that there is no dispute that the foreign income on which tax was paid in the foreign country but was included in the return of income filed by the assessee in India and the necessary taxes were also remitted to the department and hence they are entitled for deduction. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umstances of the case, the disallowance of the foreign tax paid by the assessee is not correct. 6. We have also considered the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 454/Bang/2021 dated 17/11/2021 in the case of Ms. Brinda RamaKrishna vs. ITO wherein it was held as follows: "16. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. I agree with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the Assessee and hold that (i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. I am of....