Shashank Sadashiv Karkare v. ITO
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported order treats the Form 67 filing deadline as directory and says foreign tax credit cannot be denied merely because the form was not filed by the section 139(1) due date, particularly where it was available when the return was processed.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 90; Form 67; Rule 128
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Foreign tax credit and delayed Form 67: The reported order treats the Form 67 filing deadline as directory and says foreign tax credit cannot be denied merely because the form was not filed by the section 139(1) due date, particularly where it was available when the return was processed.
Material facts and background
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual
(Resident) deriving income under the head “salary” from M/s. John Deere India Private Limited. During the year under consideration, the appellant had salary income from USA as well as India.
Income for the assessment year 2020-21 was filed on 26.03.2021
disclosing total income of Rs.60,00,500/- after claiming credit for foreign tax paid of Rs.5,63,516/- u/s.90/90A of the Act. However, the Form No.67 was filed by the appellant on 26.03.2021.
Bangalore, vide Intimation dated 06.08.2021 denied the claim for credit of TDS, as Form No.67 was not filed within prescribed time. 3.
Being aggrieved by the above Intimation, an appeal was filed
before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had confirmed the action of the CPC, Bangalore denying the claim of credit for foreign tax paid, as the Form No.67 was filed belatedly beyond the due date for filing of the return of income. 4.
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that CPC, Bangalore was
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had confirmed the action of the CPC, Bangalore denying the claim of credit for foreign tax paid, as the Form No.67 was filed belatedly beyond the due date for filing of the return of income. 4.
submitted that as on date of processing the return of income, a Form No.67 was uploaded, which the CPC, Bangalore had failed to take into consideration. Thus, he submitted that Intimation may be amended. He further submitted that a direction be issued to the CPC, Bangalore to give credit for foreign tax paid.
justified in denying the credit for foreign tax paid, as the assessee had not filed Form No.67 as per amended provisions of the I. T. Rules. 7.
record. The issue in the present appeal is that whether or not the CPC, Bangalore is justified in denying the credit for foreign tax paid for the reason that the Form No.67 was not filed within the due date for filing of the return of income as specified under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Admittedly, in the present case, Form No.67 was not filed within the due date for filing of the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1), but Form No.67 was filed on 26.03.2021. The CPC, Bangalore had processed the return of income on 06.08.2021 which means that Form No.67 was very much available with the CPC, Bangalore.
cannot deny the claim for credit for foreign tax paid merely because Form No.67 was not filed within the due date specified for filing the return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, as it is merely a directory.
amend the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act for taking into consideration the Form No.67 filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
अपीलाथ / The Appellant. यथ / The Respondent. The Pr.CIT concerned िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune.
Operative decision and relief
amend the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act for taking into consideration the Form No.67 filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 26th day of April, 2024.
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Foreign tax credit and delayed Form 67. The operative result is classified as Partly Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Foreign tax credit and delayed Form 67. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
- Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This ITAT Pune decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—Foreign tax credit and delayed Form 67—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 90, Form 67, Rule 128. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
Before citing the case, verify the latest appellate status and whether the decision is final, distinguished, stayed, reversed or confined to its facts. The packaged PDF and source trail should be read together with the current statutory text.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Foreign tax credit and delayed Form 67.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 90, Form 67, Rule 128.
- Your matter is at a comparable the same procedural and factual stage stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the ITAT Pune considered: Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual (Resident) deriving income under the head “salary” from M/s.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2020-21 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Shashank Sadashiv Karkare?
The reported order treats the Form 67 filing deadline as directory and says foreign tax credit cannot be denied merely because the form was not filed by the section 139(1) due date, particularly where it was available when the return was processed.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual (Resident) deriving income under the head “salary” from M/s. John Deere India Private Limited. During the year under consideration, the appellant had salary income from USA as well as India.
What did the ITAT Pune ultimately decide?
amend the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act for taking into consideration the Form No.67 filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Foreign tax credit and delayed Form 67. The operative result is classified as Partly Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 90, Form 67, Rule 128. The relevant statutory version for AY 2020-21 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Foreign tax credit and delayed Form 67 . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 90 — 90 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of foreign tax credit and delayed form 67. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- Form 67 — Form 67 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of foreign tax credit and delayed form 67. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- Rule 128 — Rule 128 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of foreign tax credit and delayed form 67. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 90, Form 67, Rule 128 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Foreign tax credit and delayed Form 67. The operative result is classified as Partly Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 4 |
| SHA-256 | 3c3fa72ff93ab4c2df91d973fbeeba7160818e2258d38e64f7ebc58262c7daf1 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |