TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not filed Form 67 within the due date of filing of return of income prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the same was furnished alongwith the revised return of income wherein the foreign tax credit was claimed as prescribed under Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 1.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that submission of Form 67 is a procedural requirement and based on the substantive provisions of the Act read with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA"), the Appellant should be eligible to claim relief of taxes paid in Morocco. 2. Re.: Levy of interest under section 234A of the Act 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234A of the Act of INR 2,052 as against NIL interest as per revised return of income filed by the Appellant. 2.2 The Appellant prays that the learned DDIT, CPC be directed to delete the levy of interest of INR 2,052 under section 234A of the Act. 3. Re.: Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act 3.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dual and was employed with Shell India Market Private Limited and was sent on an international assignment to Australia from 27th November, 2017 to 14th November, 2018. As the appellant worked in Australia, he was required to offer salary income earned therein for the period commencing from 27th November, 2017 to 14th November, 2018 to tax in Australia and accordingly tax was duly paid on the salary earned in Australia. Naturally, the tax on such salary income earned by the appellant in Australia is not to be paid in India as the same would be paid twice. In order to avoid double taxation on salary income for the period commencing from 27th November, 2017 to 31st March, 2018, the appellant claimed Foreign Tax Credit ('FTC') to the tune of Rs. 6,38,960/- for taxes already paid in Australia as per Section 90 read with Article 24(4) of the India-Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') read with CBDT Circular 333 dated 2nd April, 1982. The appellant in support of such claim of FTC filed Form No. 67 on 11th March 2019. The Ld. AO (CPC) has denied the claim of appellant in respect of FTC on the ground that the appellant had not filed Form No.67 read with Rule 28 of the IT R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in filing Form No.67. Delay in filing Form No.67 is a procedural delay, is not a mandatory one but a directory requirement. Moreso, double taxation avoidance agreement overrides the provision of the Act and the Rules cannot contrary to the Act. On this aspect, we have further considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR in the case of Keval Niraj Hutheesing vs. ITO (Supra). While dealing with the identical issue, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass orders relying upon the judgment passed by the Bangalore Bench in case of Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi vs. CIT, wherein ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in (1992 Supp (1) SCC 21) was followed. The relevant observation whereof is as follows: "7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has paid the taxes on the income earned in United Kingdom in that country and assessee is asking for credit of the same while filing the return of income. The CIT(A) held that the assessee has not filed Form 67 before time allowed under Section 139(5) of the Act and therefore, Form 67....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms; CIT-II v. Mantec Consultants (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 429 (Delhi) ♦ CIT v. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P.) Ltd [2009] 317 ITR 207 (Karnataka). 13. It was submitted that as per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they are more beneficial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following cases and circulars: Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) CIT v. Eli Lily & Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 505 (SC) GE India Technology Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 193 Taxman 234 (SC) Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC) (Pgs. 106-109 of PB 2-Paras 25 & 26) CBDT Circular No. 333 dated 2/4/82 137 ITR (St.) It was submitted that when there is no condition prescribed in DTAA that the FTC can be disallowed for non-compliance of any procedural provision. As the pr....