TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 822
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee against the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) dated 17.3.2021 by the CPC, Bangalore denying foreign tax credit of Rs. 76,51,818 for non-filing of Form 67, was dismissed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal raising several grounds as under:- "Ground No. 1: Non grant of Foreign Tax Credit ('FTC') of Rs. 76,51,818 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 6, Delhi. ADDL/JCIT(A)] has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, CPC (Ld. AO) of making the adjustment in the Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') of not allowing Foreign Tax Credit ('FTC') of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) erred in stating in Para 6.1 of his Order that Form 67 in support of claim of FTC in the Revised Return of Income was not filed. It is prayed that Form 67 in support of claim of FTC in the Revised Return of Income was e-filed and e-verified on 23 July 2020 as - c -: gyred by Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) himself in the subsequent paragraph. Ground No. 3: Appellant had approached the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) in an appeal and not for condonation of delay in filing of Form 67 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) erred in stating in his Order that the Appellant needs to file an application before the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for condoning the delay in filing of Form 67. It is praye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings before the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A): * Arham Pumps v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru (ITA No.206/Ahd/2021) * Ernst & Young Merchant banking Services LLP Vs. ADIT, CPC, [ITA No. 2333/Mum/2022] It is, therefore, prayed that the Ld. JAO be directed to allow FTC of Rs. 76,51,818. Ground No. 5: Orders of the Hon'ble High Court/ ITAT not followed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) has erred in not following Judicial Pronouncements mentioned in Ground Nos. 1 and 4 above relied upon during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A). It is prayed that the Order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) of not following the above-mentioned Judicial Precedents i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....020 at a total income of Rs. 3,78,60,990 and claimed tax relief of Rs. 76,51,818. He did file Form 67 along prior to filing revised return i.e. on 23/07/2022. The CPC considered the revised return of the assessee, determined the total income of assessee at Rs. 3,78,60,990, however did not grant any credit for foreign taxes paid. The intimation u/s. 143(1) was passed on 17.3.2021. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) wherein it was submitted assessee has already filed Form 67 in accordance with Rule 128 of the I.T. Rules on 23.7.2020 which is prior to filing of the revised return on 30.7.2020 and therefore he should have been granted the tax credit. The ld. CIT(Appeals) held that there is a delay in filing Form 67....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial foreign tax credit. Subsequently he filed revised return on 30.7.2020 and prior to that on 23.7.2020 he filed Form 67 as per Rule 128 of the I.T. Rules wherein he claimed foreign tax credit of Rs. 76,51,818. Form 67 is placed at page 20 to 62 of the PB. When this revised return was processed u/s. 143(1), the above foreign tax credit was denied to the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not grant him credit, but recommended to approach the PCIT for condonation of delay in filing Form 67. The assessee is entitled to the foreign tax credit naturally on salary income earned in United Kingdom (UK) and also capital gain earned therein. The assessee has also earned capital gain, interest income, dividend income in USA. Thus, the sum ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....my v. PCIT, Chennai dated 06.10.2023 for AY 2019-20 where the foreign tax credit was denied to the assessee, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that filing of Form 67 in terms of Rule 128 of the I.T. Rules is only directory in nature. Therefore, if such Form is available at the time of processing of the return, the assessee should be granted the credit for the same. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in 168 taxmann.com 622 held that time limit specified in Rule 128 is directory in nature. Thus, the Hon'ble Madras High Court on five separate occasions has held that the delay in filing Form 67 does not hamper the case of the assessee in obtaining the foreign tax credit. 13. In Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna v. ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358/1....