2026 (3) TMI 1706

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ional Faceless Appeal Centre ("Ld. CIT(A)" / "NFAC") has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer ("AO") in denying Foreign Tax Credit ("FTC") of Rs. 20,14,040/- claimed by the Appellant under section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant has paid taxes in Malaysia on income which was also offered to tax in India, and therefore denial of FTC defeats the intent and purpose of section 90 of the Act read with the India-Malaysia DTAA. In view of the above ground, the appellant respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased and credit of FTC under section 90 of the Act may be allowed to the appellant, after....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ground, the appellant respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased and delay in filing Form No.67 may be considered as compliance made by the appellant, after granting a proper opportunity of being heard. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that Rule 128(9) was amended w.e.f 01.04 2022 to allow Form 67 to be filed up to the end of the assessment year, which indicates legislative intent that the requirement is procedural and not a condition precedent for granting FTC 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming denial of credit merely on the basis of procedural lapse without pointing out any deficiency in evidence regarding: (a) tax paid in Malaysia, (b) income earned in Malaysi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect for the condonation in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of three days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is a resident individual and was employed with Adi Impex SDN BHD, a company situated in Malaysia during the year under consideration. Assessee earned salary income of Rs. 70,50,259/- from Adi Impex SDN BHD on which tax of Rs. 20,14,040/- was deducted by Adi Impex SDN BHD, Malaysia. 2.1 For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income on the 16.10.2017, declaring income at Rs. 71,17,930/-, which included salary income of Rs. 70,50,259/- received from Adi Impex SDN BHD. The assessee had claimed rel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Anuj Bhagwati v. DCIT, ITA No. 1844 & 1845/Mum/2022, dated 20.09.2022 f) Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO, ITA No. 454/Bang/2021, dated 17.11.2021. g) DCIT v. Prabha Nageshwar Rachakondawar, ITA No. 85/Nag/2023, dated 09.05.2024 h) John Arunkumar Diaz v. DCIT, ITA No. 3647/Mum/2023, dated 15.02.2024. i) Nirmala Murli Relwani v. ADIT, ITA No. 2094/Mum/2022, dated 01.12.2022. j) Vikas Daga v. ACIT, ITA No. 2536/Del/2022, dated 14.06.2023. k) Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT(A), [2022] 145 taxmann.com 235 (Bangalore - Trib.). 3.1 Ld. CIT(A) however dismissed the appeal holding that Rule 128(9) used the word "shall". Hence, it is mandatory to file Form No. 67 before filing return u/s. 139(1). Ld.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A No. 2094/Mum/2022, dated 01.12.2022. d) Sonakshi Sinha v. CIT(A), NFAC, ITA No. 1704/Mum/2022, dated 20.09.2022 e) Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju (2024) 162 taxmann.com 96 (Bangalore Trib.) f) Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT(A), [2022] 145 taxmann.com 235 (Bangalore - Trib.). g) John Arunkumar Diaz v. DCIT, ITA No. 3647/Mum/2023, dated 15.02.2024. h) Anuj Bhagwati v. DCIT, ITA No. 1844 & 1845/Mum/2022, dated 20.09.2022. 4.4 Ld. DR on the contrary relied on the orders passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 5. We refer to the decision of Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal in case of M/s. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ous High Courts, which has also been approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. reported in (2021) 432 ITR 471. 8. We accordingly, hold that FTC cannot be denied to the assessee. directed to file the relevant Assessee is 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. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes." 5.2. We find that the reliance plac....