9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been included in the total income and tax on the said income has been paid. The assessee has claimed FTC for the taxes paid abroad . The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal on identical facts in the case of Ms.Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO [ 2022 (2) TMI 752 - ITAT BANGALORE] had held that filing of Form 67 is a procedural / directory requirement and not a mandatory requirement. It was held that violation of the procedural norm does not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC. Thus we hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of FTC. Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 223/Bang/2023 - - - Dated:- 15-5-2023 - Shri George George K, JM And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM For the Appellant : Sri. Navaneet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) confirmed the order of rectification and held that the assessee has not filed Form No.67 before the prescribed time limit. Therefore, it was concluded by the CIT(A) that Form No.67 filed belatedly is nonest in law and the provisions of Rule 128 of the I.T.Rules are mandatory in nature. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assesee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has offered foreign income to tax in India amounting to Rs.63,23,362 and had paid taxes on the same in India amounting to Rs.21,47,702. Therefore, it was submitted that the denial of credit for foreign tax of Rs.14,02,442 paid overseas is incorrect. The learned AR placing reliance on the Bangalore Bench order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 the view that the issue was not debatable and there was only one view possible on the issue which is the view set out above. I am also of the view that the issue in the proceedings u/s.154 of the Act, even if it involves long drawn process of reasoning, the answer to the question can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
