Directs Assessing Officer to grant relief under section 90/91 as Form No. 67 & revised return filed within stipulated time

The case of the Assessee was taken in Limited Scrutiny on grounds of Double Taxation Relief was claimed under section 90/91 and the Assessee was having foreign assets. The assessing officer noticed that the assessee, during the year has made investments in foreign assets on behalf of minor daughters in shares of a company namely, Clonberg Holding Ltd. equivalent to Rs. 1,64,61,100/- and Rs. 1,66,78,642/- respectively.
The assessing officer further noticed that the assessee has claimed benefit of Double Taxation Relief under section 90/91 of the Act. The Assessing Officer finally passed the assessment order dated 06.12.2019 where he made addition on account of investment in shares of foreign company for an aggregate amount of Rs. 3,31,42,742/- in the name of two minor daughters namely, Nanki Parvinder Singh and Nandini Parvinder Singh under section 69 of the Act and he has also not allowed credit for tax paid in Singapore amounting to Rs. 23,02,920/- and also invoked provisions of Section 115BBE. The aggrieved assessee appealed before the CIT(A) who granted relief on both the issue. Now the Revenue is aggrieved and is before us.
The ld DR vehemently argued that the CIT(A) granted relief on the basis of ITR only. The ld DR stated that the assessee has not submitted the source and mode of such purchases/investment in foreign assts in respect of investment made in foreign assets.

Delhi ITAT allows Assessee’s (Malvinder Mohan Singh) appeal directing the Assessing Officer to grant relief under Section 90/91 as both Form No. 67 and the revised return were filed within the stipulated period for claiming Foreign Tax Credit as prescribed under Rule 128 of Income Tax Rules; Therefore, ITAT holds that the Assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80-IAC; ITAT notes that the Assessee is a large taxpayer whose taxable income for Assessment year under consideration was Rs 26.80 Cr., inclusive of income of minor daughters; Also, ITAT emphasizes that the Assessee declared the said investment in the name of his two daughters in the original return of income; Tribunal states that the Assessee provided the bank accounts in India where the aforementioned investments stands reflected; ITAT observes that with the kind of returned income declared, there should be no doubt regarding the source of investments as the Assessee had sufficient source of income to make investments to the tune of Rs. 3.31 Cr.; Further, ITAT highlights that the Assessee had also provided the complete details regarding its foreign assets, bank accounts in the name of the Assessee, and also in the name of minor daughters in India, and in foreign countries to the Assessing Officer; Outlining the double taxation relief claimed by the Assessee in its return of income, ITAT articulates that the Assessee provided a statement giving requisite details of tax paid in Singapore and tax payable in India on the salary income of Singapore that is taxable in India, and also included it in the taxable income in the return submitted to the Assessing Officer; ITAT notes CIT(A)’s observation that both Form No. 67 and revised return were filed within the prescribed time limit, and therefore should be accepted, and that no income could be taxed twice, and therefore directed the Assessing Officer to allow Assessee’s claim and delete the disallowance.

[In favour of assessee]
(Related Assessment year : 2017-18) – [DCIT v. Malvinder Mohan Singh [TS-1637-ITAT-2025(DEL)] – Date of Judgement : 10.12.2025 (ITAT Delhi)]