Foreign Tax Credit Cannot Be Denied Merely for Late Filing of Form 67: ITAT Delhi

Rahul Singhal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Core Issue: The core issue before the Tribunal was whether delayed filing of Form No. 67 under Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules could defeat the assessee’s substantive claim for Foreign Tax Credit under sections 90/90A/91 read with applicable DTAAs, when such form was admittedly filed before completion of assessment proceedings.

Facts of the Case: The assessee filed appeals for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 challenging denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) and other additions. The appeals before the Tribunal were delayed by about 198/205 days owing to severe medical complications involving lumbar spine instability and major spinal surgery. The Tribunal condoned the delay after accepting the medical evidence and affidavit explaining inability to pursue litigation within limitation period.

For AY 2017-18, the Assessing Officer denied FTC of ₹42,19,483 claimed under sections 90/91. In addition, disallowance under section 37 amounting to ₹23,42,810 and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) amounting to ₹40,29,978 were also made.

For AY 2018-19, FTC amounting to ₹25,64,005 under sections 90/90A was denied. The CIT(A) upheld denial primarily on the ground that details of exports and tax credit relating to various foreign countries were not adequately furnished and it was unclear whether DTAA existed with those countries.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that both the AO and CIT(A) passed cryptic and non-speaking orders without proper appreciation of materials already furnished. It was specifically submitted that Form No. 67, though not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1), had admittedly been filed before completion of assessment proceedings for both years. The assessee argued that filing of Form No. 67 is merely procedural and cannot extinguish substantive right to FTC under sections 90/91 and DTAA provisions.

The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that timely filing of Form No. 67 was mandatory and relied upon the judgment of Wipro Limited v. CIT reported in 446 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that statutory timelines must be strictly complied with to avail tax benefits.

Findings of AO and CIT(A):

The Assessing Officer denied FTC claims primarily on account of non-compliance with procedural requirements including delayed filing of Form No. 67 and alleged non-submission of adequate supporting details.

The CIT(A)-NFAC confirmed the denial through brief and cryptic orders by observing that details relating to exports and DTAA entitlement were not sufficiently demonstrated before the AO. Relief was accordingly denied for both years.

ITAT Findings:

The Tribunal held that filing of Form No. 67 within the prescribed due date is merely a directory procedural requirement and not a mandatory condition precedent for grant of Foreign Tax Credit.

The Tribunal observed that substantial judicial opinion consistently holds that FTC cannot be denied merely because Form No. 67 was filed belatedly, especially when such form was filed before completion of assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that neither section 90 nor the applicable DTAA provisions prescribe denial of FTC for delayed filing of Form No. 67. Rule 128(9) merely prescribes procedure and does not provide any consequence of forfeiture of FTC for delay in filing the form.

The Tribunal distinguished the judgment in Wipro Limited v. CIT by observing that the said case pertained to section 10B(8), where filing of declaration within prescribed time was a substantive statutory condition for claiming exemption, whereas Form No. 67 under Rule 128 is only procedural in nature.

The Tribunal relied upon several coordinate bench decisions and High Court rulings holding that procedural lapses cannot defeat substantive treaty-based tax credit rights. It was emphasized that DTAA provisions and section 90 create vested substantive rights in favour of the assessee which cannot be nullified by procedural non-compliance unless statute specifically so provides.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the FTC claims and grant relief in accordance with law and applicable DTAA provisions despite belated filing of Form No. 67.

For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal further set aside other additions under sections 37 and 40(a)(ia) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Cases Relied Upon:

1. Swapan Bhattacharya v. ITO-175 taxmann.com 591 (2025)-Held that filing of Form No. 67 is directory and FTC cannot be denied merely because the form was filed belatedly.

2. Rahul Anand v. ADIT CPC-169 taxmann.com 281 (2024)-Held that FTC is allowable if Form No. 67 is filed before completion of assessment proceedings.

3. Jaspal Singh Bindra v. DCIT-170 taxmann.com 80 (2025)-Held that procedural delay in filing Form No. 67 does not extinguish substantive FTC entitlement.

4. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO-135 taxmann.com 358-Held that Rule 128 procedural requirements are directory in nature.

5. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT-139 taxmann.com 448-FTC cannot be denied for procedural delay in filing Form No. 67.

6. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT-W.P. No. 5834 of 2022-Held that filing of Form No. 67 is directory and FTC claim cannot be rejected merely because form was not filed within due date.

7. CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd.-376 ITR 456 (SC)- Procedural requirements can be complied with subsequently and do not defeat substantive claims.

8. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner-1992 Supp (1) SCC 21-Distinction between substantive and procedural conditions explained.

9. Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT-432 ITR 471 (SC)-Held that DTAA provisions override domestic law where more beneficial to assessee.

10. Wipro Limited v. CIT-446 ITR 1 (SC)-Distinguished by Tribunal as relating to substantive statutory exemption conditions under section 10B and not merely procedural requirements like Form No. 67.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

This is a batch of two appeals of the same assessee for AYs 2017-18 8: 2018-19. Both these appeals are reportedly time barred by 198 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay. For the sake of convenience, the affidavit filed in ITA No.8394/Del/2025 (AY 2017-18) is extracted as under:

“I Rahul Singhal, S/o Sh Agam kala Prakashan R/e Buiding No.2, Modi Complex Community Centre, Phase-Il, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052, do solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am Rahul Singhal, the Appellant, and as such well conversant with the facts deposed to below.

2. That the CIT (A) Order dated 26.03.2025 was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi.

3. That the statutory time limit for filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi expired on 24,05.2025, and the appeal is being filed with a delay of 205 days.

4. That the appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT could not be filed within the prescribed time due to my severe medical condition and continuous treatment. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate.

5. That I have been facing severe lumbar spine issues, including L4-L5 and L5-S1 instability. Because of this, I had extreme back pain, difficulty in walking, and could not carry out even normal routine work.

6. Due to the seriousness of the condition, I had to be admitted to BLK-Max Super Specialty Hospital, New Delhi, on the following occasions:

• • • 04.2025 to 30.04.2025-Hospitalised for severe back pain and spine instability,
    • 07.2025 to 27.07.2025-Again hospitalized and underwent major 100 surgery (L4-L5. L5-51 MIS TLIF) under general anesthesia. After the surgery, multiple screws, rods, and implants were placed in my spine. I was on strict bed rest, physiotherapy, and frequent follow-ups. I was not in a condition to walk properly, sit for long, or manage paperwork.

7. Due to this the document/information for filing Appeal are not gathered on timely and provided to AR. That delay solely occurred due my poor health condition.

8. That I am now filling the appeal along with this affidavit. I am also attaching copies of:

• • • Hospital discharge summaries.
    • X-ray and spine images.
    • Surgery records.
    • Other medical documents.

These clearly show the reason for the delay.

9. That I respectfully request the Hon’ble Tribunal to kindly condone the delay of 205 days in the interest of justice as the delay was on account of genuine medical hardship.

10. That I assure no further delay or default will occur in future.”

1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said affidavit the delay is hereby condoned. It may be mentioned that identical reasons have been advanced for delay in ITA No.8395/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19) and since the facts are same, hence, the delay in this appeal is also condoned. Accordingly, both the appeals are admitted for adjudication.

2. ITA No.8394/Del/2025 arises from order dated 26.03.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC. The appeal ITA No.8395/Del/2025 arises from impugned order dated 28.03.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Act by NFAC, Delhi. For the sake of convenience both these appeals are being disposed of through a single order.

2.1 AY 2017-18:

i. The Ld. AO made additions by disallowing believe u/s 90/91 of Rs.42,19,483/-;

ii. Addition of Rs.23,42,810/- u/s 37 of the Act and;

iii. Disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.40,29,978/-.

The assessee carried these matters before the Ld. CIT(A) where he could not succeed on the basis of the fact that relevant details were not presented before the Ld. AO and thereby the Ld. CIT(A) declined to interfere with the Ld. AO’s order or Ld. AO’s findings on the three additions.

2.2 In this case, the AO did not grant relief of Rs.25,64,005/- u/s 90/90A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) did not give any relief on this on the basis of a short and very cryptic order whereby it was held that the details of exports to several countries were not supplied before the AO and it was not clear whether those countries had any DTAA in India.

3. For both these years the assessee has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) through the following grounds: –

Ground of appeal (AY 2017-18):

“1. That the impugned appeal order is bad in law, illegal, and in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence.

2. That the Hon’ble CIT(A)-NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer who failed to adhere to the scope and mandate of the Limited Scrutiny proceedings. It is a settled principle, duly supported by CBDT Instructions governing CASS selection. The confirmation of such action by the Hon’ble CIT(A) renders the appellate order bad in law and unsustainable.

3. That the assessment order as well as the appellate order is vitiated due to violation of the principles of natural justice, as adequate and fair opportunity of hearing was not granted.

4. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) – NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in denying Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of ₹42,19,483/-claimed under Sections 90/90A/91 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

5. That the Hon’ble CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts by confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowance amount of Rs.23,42,810/-under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

6. That the Hon’ble CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts by confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowance amount of Rs.40,29,978/-under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

7. That the Hon’ble CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi has failed to adjudicate the facts, submissions, legal precedents and judicial rulings placed on record and has passed a mechanical, non-speaking, cryptic order without proper reasoning, rendering the order unsustainable in law.

8. That the appellant craves leave to add/alter any/ all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Ground of appeal (AY 2018-19):

“1. That the impugned appeal order is bad in law, illegal, and in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence.

2. That the Hon’ble CIT(A)-NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer who failed to adhere to the scope and mandate of the ‘Limited Scrutiny proceedings, it is a settled principle, duly supported by CBDT Instructions governing CASS selection. The confirmation of such action by the Hon’ble CIT(A) renders the appellate order bad in law and unsustainable.

3. That the Hon’ble CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in effectively enhancing the assessment by denying the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of ₹25,64,005/-, in violation of Section 251(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without issuing any notice of enhancement or providing the appellant a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The enhancement is illegal and renders the impugned order void and unsustainable.

4. That the Hon’ble CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in the computation sheet with assessment order, despite the fact that the assessee had duly claimed the same in the return of income. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer himself had specifically recorded in the assessment order that all requisite details were submitted by the assessee and that no addition was required on the Issue, yet the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) was not allowed, rendering the assessment and the appellate order erroneous and unsustainable.

5. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) -NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee did not file required documents before the Ld. Assessing Officer, whereas the assessment order itself acknowledges submission of all details along with complete supporting documents was filed during assessment proceedings.”

3.1 Before us the Ld. AR argued that both the authorities below have passed non-speaking orders and there is absolute denial of opportunity. It has also been stated that credit for taxes retained by several countries was unjustifiably denied. The Ld. AR also stated that they have filed considerable details with the return of income but the same was not considered by the authorities below for both the years. The Ld. AR requested for another chance to present the facts before the authorities below. It was also mentioned that for both the years Form 67 was duly filed before completion of assessment proceedings. However, it was admitted by the Ld. AR that the Form 67 may not have been filed within the due date as stipulated in the Act but were certainly filed before the assessment could be completed.

3.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that the timely filing of Form 67 is an essential condition for claiming any relief u/s 90/91 of the Act, etc. The Ld. DR relied on the case of Wipro Limited reported in 446 ITR 1 (SC) to canvass the point that the due dates mentioned for filing Form 67 was required to be complied with to avail any consequent benefit.

4. We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR. We have also gone through the documents before us. On the issue of belated filing of Form 67 there is a considerable body of judicial opinion that renders the requirement of filing Form 67 within the due date as a directory condition and not mandatory. It would be sufficient at this stage to rely on the order of Swapan Bhattacharya reported in 175 taxmann.com 591 (Kolkata – Trib.) [2025]. The following extract from this order would settle the issue in favour of the assessee regarding the belated of filing Form 67:

“5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. During the course of the appeal, the Ld. DR submitted that the Form No.67 was filed on 30.03.2019, which was late and was filed beyond the due date of filing the return of income. The Ld. AR submitted that during the year the income was earned in USA and section 90 of the Act read with the DTAA was applicable. Though Form No. 67 was filed late but the same was filed on 30.03.2019 and was available at the time of processing of the return of income carried out u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.12.2019 as well as at the time of completion of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2019 and, therefore, the credit for Foreign Taxes paid in the USA should have been allowed. Reliance was placed by the Ld. AR on the case of Rahul Anand vs. ADIT (CPC, Bengaluru) in Rahul Anand vs. ADIT CPC [2024] 169 taxmann.com 281 (Kolkata – Trib.)/ITA No. 1497/Kol/2024 order dt 06.12.2024, a copy of which was filed along with the case law paper book in which reliance has also been placed upon several other judicial pronouncements. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee had filed multiple returns which was countered by the Ld. DR by stating that the return was revised but in the computation sheet, different figure has been adopted while in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the total income is assessed at Rs.2,23,86,630/- which is the same as the income as per the return of income. Our attention was further drawn to column 14 of the computation sheet in which total income after deduction is shown at Rs.2,49,43,470/- while in column 16 the aggregate income is shown at Rs.2,23,86,630/-. The assessee has claimed the refund but the contrary demand was raised. The Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the ground relating to the enhanced income. An application filed u/s 154 of the Act filed was rejected. After analysis of the computation sheet, it was noted that the income from capital gains shown at Rs.68,28,041/- was not correct which as per the final revised return at pages 22 to 27 of the paper book was shown at Rs. ‘Nil’ on account of short term capital gains earned outside India and set off of brought forward losses for AY 2016-17. It was submitted that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate this issue in the appeal. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

6. We have gone through the submissions made and also considered the facts of the come. Similar issue arose in the case of Jaspal Singh Bindra v. Dy. CIT [2025] 170 saxmann.com 80 (Kolkata – Trib.)/ITA No. 1826/KOL/2004 dated 19.11.2024 in which the Coordinate Bench (in which the Accountant Member was a member) on similar issue of FTC allowed the appeal. The following cases have been referred in the said order as well as in the order of Rahul Anand (supra) relied upon by the assessee:

i. CITV G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2016) 71 taxmann.com 35/376 ITR 456 (SC)/ Civil Appeal Nos. 10782 of 2013 and 4048 of 2014 dated 24.06.2015.

ii. Brinda Ramakrishna v ITO [2022] 135 com 358/193 ITD 840 (Bangalore-Trib.)

iii. 42 Hertz Software India (P) Lad Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2022) 139 com 448 (Bangalore-Trib.)/ITA No. 29/Bang/2001

iv. Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v PCIT, W.P. No. 5834 of 2022

7. Before proceeding farther, we would like to reproduce rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) which relates to foreign tax credit and is as under:

“Foreign Tax Credit.

128 (1) An assessee, being a resident shall be allowed credit for the amount of any foreign the tax paid by him in a country or specified territory outside India, by way of deduction or otherwise, in the year in which the income corresponding to such lax has been offered to tax or assessed to sax in India, in the manner and to the extent as specified in this rule:

Provided that in a case where income on which foreign tax has been paid or deducted, is offered to tax in more than one year, credit of foreign tax shall be allowed across these years in the same proportion in which the income is offered to tax or assessed to tax in India.”

8. We further note that section 90 of the Act provides that Government of India can enter into Agreement with other countries for granting relief in respect of income on which taxes are paid in country outside India and such income is also taxable in India. Article 25 of DTAA between India and USA provides for credit for foreign taxes. Article 25(2)(a) is relevant in the present contest and the same is extracted below:

“Where a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, may be taxed in the United States, India shall allow as a deduction from the tax on the income of that resident as amount equal to the income tax paid in the United States, whether directly or by deduction. Such deduction shall net, however, exceed that part of the income-tax (as computed before the deduction is given) which is attributable to the income which may be taxed in the United States.”

9. Thus, Section 90 of the Act read with Article 25(2)(a) of the DTAA provides that tax paid in USA shall be allowed as a credit against the tax payable in India but limited to the proportion of Indian tax. Neither section 90 nor the DTAA provides that FTC shall be disallowed for noncompliance with any procedural requirement. Foreign Tax Credit is an assessor’s vested right as per Article 25(2)(e) of the DTAA read with Section 90 and sane cannot be disallowed for non-compliance with procedural requirement as prescribed in the rules.

10. Further, we would like to mention that rule 128(9) provides that Form No. 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, the rule nowhere provides that if the said Form No. 67 is not filed within the required time frame, the relief as sought by the assesses a’s 90 of the Act would be denied it therefore evident that if the intention of the legislature were in deny the foreign tax credit, either the Act or the rules would have specifically provided that the foreign tax credit would be disallowed if the assessee does not file Form No. 67 within the due date prescribed under section 1391) of the Act. We further note that as is judicially held filing of Form No. 67 is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement and violation of procedural norm docs not extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of FTC and such is the finding in the cases of the coordinate Benches referred to in the order of Jaspal Singh Bindra (supra).

11. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 1992 com 24 (SC) [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 21] in respect of compliance with the procedural requirements have observed that:

“The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way of that other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.”

12. Further, in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2021) 125 com 42/281 Taxman 19/432 ITR 471 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under that the provisions of DIAA shall override the provisions of the Income-tax Act unless they are more beneficial to the assessee:

165. The conclusions in the afore-stated paragraph have no direct relevance to the facts at hand as the effect of section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read with explanation 4 thereof, is to treat the DTAA provisions as the law that must be followed by Indian courts, notwithstanding what may be contained in the Income tax Art in the contrary, unless more beneficial to the assessee.

13. We have gone through the decision of the coordinate Benches and concur with their findings in this regard that filing of Form No. 67 is directory and not mandatory and the credit for foreign takes paid cannot be denied merely on the delay in filing the Form Na 67.

14. We have also gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumarswamy (supra) and find that the facts of the case of the assessee in that care, the petitioner was resides of India and had filed Indian ITR and claimed benefit of FTC u/s 90/91 of the Act r.w. Article 24 of the Indian-Kenya DTAA. During the year, he had income of both Kenya and India but while filing the Indian ITR for the impugned assessment year 2019-20, the Form 67 prescribed in rule 128 of the rules for claiming FTC was in advenently not uploaded along with the ITR which was uploaded un 02.02.2021. The return was processed on 26.03. 2021, however, the credit of FTC was not given effect to and the request made to the CPC to give effect to the FTC was not accepted and intimation along with notices of demand was received. The assessee also could not succeed with the rectification application filed and approached the CIT u/s 264 of the Act and at the same time filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. It was stated by the respondent-department that rule 128 is mandatory and cannot be considered as directory in nature. The petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the case of G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (supra). The Hon’ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition in Devour of the assessee by holding as under:

“11. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT, Maharashtra vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Limited in CIT, Maharashtra vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. [2016] 71 taxmann.com 35/376 ITR 456 (SC)/Civil appeal Nos. 10782 of 2013 and 4048 of 2014 dated 24.06.2015, which was referred above, would be squarely applicable to the present case. In the present case, the returns were filed without FTC, however the same was filed before passing of the final assessment order. The filing of FTC in terms of the Rule 128 is only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the Act and it will always be directory in nature. This is what the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in the above cases when the returns were filed without furnishing Form 3AA and the same can be filed the subsequent to the passing of assessment order. W.P. No. 5834 of 2022.

12. Further, in the present case, the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 26.03.2021, but the FTC was filed on 02.02.2011. Thus, the respondent is supposed to have provided the due credit to the FTC of the petitioner. However, the FTC was rejected by the respondent, which is not proper and the same is not in accordance with law Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.01.2022 is set aside. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court remits the matter back to the respondent to make reassessment by taking into consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner un 02.02.2001. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner und hence, the first respondent a directed to consider only on the aspect of rejection of FTC claim within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

15. Respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (supra) and concurring with the views held by the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the cases relied upon in the cases of Mahal Anand amd Jaspal Singh Bindra (supra), we hold that merely because the assessee could not file Form No. 67 within the prescribed time limit as per the provisions of rule 128(9) of the Income tax rules, 1962, as it stood during the year under consideration, will not preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of the Foreign Tax Credit in respect of taxes paid outside India. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed in give benefit of Foreign Tax Credit in respect of taxes paid outside India by the assessee in accordance with law and the DTAA between India and the USA, Accordingly, Ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.”

4.1 The case of Wipro Limited may not be of much help since it pertains to a benefit claimed u/s 10B(8) of the Act and the necessary declaration was filed in a revised return much after the due date prescribed. Thus, merely because Form 67 was filed belatedly relief cannot be denied to the assessee. However, we hasten to add that while the principle has been decided it would still be left open for appropriate verification as per law and only thereafter should the Ld. AO grant any relief u/s 90/91 etc. of the Act. The issue of credit for taxes retained outside India is exclusive to AY 2018-19 and one of the issues for AY 2017­18. Thus, the appeal for AY 2018-19 is disposed of with directions to the AO to verify the claim of Foreign Tax Credit and granting of the same to the assessee even if the Form 67 has been filed belatedly.

4.2 Regarding the remaining additions for AY 2017-18 the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh assessment, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06.05.2026