9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee reads as under : "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the Rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Ld. CPC, Bangalore is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the Ld. CPC, Bangalore ought to have appreciated the fact that the foreign tax credit as claimed by the assessee company was not considered in computation but the same was considered in Annexure TR (As computed) in the Rectification order u/s 154 which clearly states that there is an error while passing the rectification order dated 03.06.2022. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Ld. CPC, Bangalore erred in not appreciating the fact that the US branch income was duly considered in the books of the CES Limited and offered to tax in India and necessary withholding taxes on the same income paid in US has been claimed as per DTAA and Section 90 of the Act. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. CPC, Bangalore erred in considering the fact that filing of Form 67 is not mandatory but directory in nature and disallowing the rightful claim of Foreign Tax Credit on the simple reason, being the assessee failed to file Form 67 within the due date, is bad in law and unjustified. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have recalled the settled position of law which clearly states that a benevolent provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order also included a refund of Rs. 4,55,560/-, but it erroneously disallowed tax relief claimed under section 90 of the Act amounting to Rs. 64,39,196/- and incorrectly considered Fees payable under section 234F as Rs. 10,000/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer u/s 154 of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who granted partial relief to the assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. At the outset, ld.AR for the assessee contends that the disallowance of Rs. 64,39,196/- under section 90 for Foreign Tax Credit is unwarranted, as they have declared the export turnover and filed Form-67 on 26.03.2021. Additionally, the assessee argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for AY 2020-21. However, Ld. CPC, Bangalore in the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 03.06.2022 has disallowed the relief claimed U/s 90 of the Act amounting to Rs. 64,39,196/- as per serial no. 33 of the order. The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the action of the AO-CPC on the ground that Form No. 67 has not been filed within the due dates mentioned u/s 139 of the Act. 2.3. It is to mention that the Present Appeal is against the order u/s 250 of the Act dated 15.09.2023 and the issue in the consideration is wrongful disallowance of claim of Foreign Tax Credit u/s 90 of the Act amounting to Rs. 64,39,196/-. 2.4. In this regard it is to submit that the Ld. CIT ought to have considered the fact that claim made U/s 90 of the Act can never be denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention, may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident an amount equal to the income-tax paid in the United States, whether directly or by deduction. Such deduction shall not, however, exceed that part of the incometax (as computed before the deduction is given) which is attributable to the income which may be taxed in the United States." 3. Filling of Form No. 67 is not mandatory but a directory provision: 3.1. The Ld. ClT(A) in his order u/s 250 dated 15.09.2023 had denied the claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) by the assessee company on the ground that the assessee has not filed Form No. 67 within the due dates mentioned u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. ClT(A) ought to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. would be denied. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to get this foreign tax credit of Rs. 17,72,470/- u/s 90 of the Act. We also note that the claim in respect of foreign tax was allowed in the order passed u/s 143(1) of the dated 28.03.2019 and was withdrawn by the AO by passing order u/s 154 of the Act when the assessee filed form 67 before the AO. In our opinion the credit in respect of foreign tax cannot be denied to the assessee for the technicality of not filing the form 67 within the due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Coordinate Benches in the case of Atanu Mukherjee Vs. /TO in ITA No. 439/K0U2022 for AY 2020-21 order dated 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
