This compilation indexes 12 Indian income-tax rulings — spanning multiple ITAT benches and two High Courts — in which Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was a central or material provision. The cases were pronounced between February 2026 and June 2026 and address a range of disputes including foreign tax credit (FTC) claims, the procedural requirement of Form No. 67, DTAA treaty-rate applicability, and allied issues such as Dividend Distribution Tax rates and penalty levy. The compilation is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured index of recent judicial activity under Section 90.

Research index only. This page catalogues judicial orders for reference purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Readers should consult the full text of each judgment and seek professional counsel before acting on any information.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Central Government to enter into agreements with foreign governments for the granting of relief in respect of income on which income-tax has been paid both under the Act and under the corresponding law in force in that country, for the avoidance of double taxation, for exchange of information, or for recovery of taxes. Where such a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is in force, the provisions of the Act apply only to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee. Sub-section (2) of Section 90 provides that where a DTAA has been entered into, the provisions of the Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee. The procedural mechanism for claiming foreign tax credit — including filing Form No. 67 — is governed by Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which operates in conjunction with Section 90.

The 12 rulings

1. Parag Gupta,Bangalore vs ITO-Ward-7(1), New Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 30 June 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 139(4), 143(1), 295(1), 295(2)(ha), 80A, 90(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal, bearing ITA No. 661/Del/2026 for Assessment Year 2021-22, was filed by the assessee (PAN: BHMPG3538F) against the action of the Assessing Officer in denying foreign tax credit of Rs 13,91,287/-, on the ground that Form No. 67 was filed beyond the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee had filed the original return of income for AY 2021-22 on 24-12-2021 declaring total income of Rs 2,41,31,730/- and claimed relief under the applicable DTAA provisions read with section 90(2) of the Act.

2. Nikhil Balkrishna Khobragade,Pune vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Pune

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 30 June 2026
Sections engaged: 90
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1623/PUN/2026) was filed against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A), Chennai passed under sections 154 and 250 of the Act, challenging the CIT(A)'s sustenance of denial of foreign tax credit. The assessee, who was on assignment to the United States of America during FY 2021-2022 and paid taxes there, had filed a return of income for AY 2022-23 on 28.07.2022 disclosing total income of Rs 3,87,770/-, and subsequently filed a revised return on 01.11.2022 including salary income from the USA and claiming Foreign Tax Credit of Rs 1,76,456/- under the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, with the revenue processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the income as returned.

3. Sgs India Private Limited,Mumbai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 30 June 2026
Sections engaged: 115, 2(43), 90
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Five appeals (ITA Nos. 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, and 1067/Mum/2026) covering Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 were consolidated before the Tribunal, with the common issue being whether Dividend Distribution Tax is payable at the rate prescribed under the relevant provision of the Act or at the rate under the applicable DTAA read with section 90 of the Act. One of the appeals, ITA No. 1067/Mum/2026, arose out of an order under section 154 of the Act; the remaining appeals raise the same substantive treaty-rate question for the assessee (PAN: AAACS5514Q).

4. Pornprapha Pholdahan,Kolar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(1)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 29 June 2026
Sections engaged: 90, 143(1)(c)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1232/Bang/2026) for Assessment Year 2018-19 was directed against the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad dated 12 January 2026, which dismissed the assessee's challenge to an intimation dated 28 February 2019 passed under section 143(1) of the Act. The sole issue was whether the assessee, an individual salaried resident, was entitled to foreign tax credit claimed under the applicable DTAA; the assessee had filed her return of income on 31 August 2018 declaring total income of ₹45,08,054 and claimed credit for taxes paid abroad, while Form No. 67 in support of the claim was filed on 21 May 2019.

5. Srikanth Atluri,Durgaagraharam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
Date: 12 June 2026
Sections engaged: 90
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 97/Viz/2026) for Assessment Year 2020-21 was filed before the Visakhapatnam Bench of the ITAT by the assessee (PAN: AFRPA5568H). The source preview is primarily procedural in nature, containing the caption, bench composition, hearing and pronouncement dates, and dispatch details; the substantive grounds beyond section 90 are not elaborated in the available preview.

6. Hemant Ramchandra Pawar,Pune vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 10 June 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 90
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1100/PUN/2026) for AY 2019-20 was filed against the order of the JCIT(A)-5, Chennai passed under section 250 of the Act on 09/01/2026, and arose from the assessee's deputation to Denmark during which salary was received from Tech-Mahindra Limited. The assessee disclosed the foreign salary in the return of income and claimed foreign tax credit; it is noted in the source preview that there was an admitted delay in filing Form No. 67 as per Rule 128, with Form 67 having been filed on 19/03/2021.

7. M/S.Vedanta Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner Of

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 2 June 2026
Sections engaged: 44B, 90
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three Tax Case Appeals (T.C.A. Nos. 733 to 735 of 2010) were filed before the Madras High Court by M/s. Vedanta Limited (successor in interest to Cairn India Limited) against a consolidated ITAT Chennai order dated 11.12.2009 in ITA Nos. 879, 880, and 881/Mds/2002, covering Assessment Years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001. The matters were reserved on 17.04.2026 and delivered on 02.06.2026; the substantive questions involve the interplay of section 44B and section 90 of the Act, though the detailed reasoning is not elaborated in the available source preview.

8. Kamleshkumar Rameshbhai vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Surat
Date: 15 May 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 90
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1277/SRT/2025) for Assessment Year 2019-20 was filed against the appellate order dated 26.09.2025 of the Additional Commissioner/JCIT (Appeals), Panaji, arising out of an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. The solitary issue in this appeal, as stated in the source preview, is the belated filing of Form No. 67 and the consequential denial of the benefit of Foreign Tax Credit of Rs 10,06,042/- to the assessee (PAN: ABYPG1133B).

9. Sharique Ahmad,Patna vs ITO Ward 4(1), Patna

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna
Date: 13 April 2026
Sections engaged: 90, 139(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 576/PAT/2025) for Assessment Year 2020-2021 was filed against the order of the JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai dated 25.10.2025, raising the ground of non-grant of foreign tax credit under sections 90/90A on account of delay in filing Form No. 67. The assessee (PAN: BDVPA7156A) had filed a return of income on 08.01.2021 in ITR-2, with the due date of filing return also falling in January 2021 per the source preview.

10. Arun Sarabhai,Agra vs ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra
Date: 27 March 2026
Sections engaged: 90, 139(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 561/AGR/2025) for Assessment Year 2018-19 was filed by the assessee (PAN: ADMPS4050P), who had disclosed foreign income and claimed foreign tax credit of Rs 1,80,424/-. The return was processed by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act on 03-09-2019, denying the foreign tax credit on the ground of non-furnishing of Form 67; the assessee submitted that Form No. 67 was initially omitted due to ignorance of the procedural formalities required to claim foreign tax credit under the applicable provisions.

11. Benteler Automotive China Investment vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 27 March 2026
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vii), 90
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Writ Petition No. 11074 of 2025 was filed before the Bombay High Court by Benteler Automotive (China) Investment Limited, a Chinese entity, against orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (IT), Circle-1, Pune, the Commissioner of Income-tax (IT&TP), Pune, and the Union of India. The petition engages the interaction of section 9(1)(vii) and section 90 of the Act; the detailed factual matrix and substantive relief claimed are not elaborated beyond the caption and party details in the available source preview.

12. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Indian Overseas Bank

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 5 February 2026
Sections engaged: 271(1)(c), 90
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: TCA Nos. 64 and 65 of 2014 were filed by the revenue before the Madras High Court against the common ITAT Madras A Bench order dated 14-02-2013 in ITA Nos. 1990 and 1991 of 2011, concerning Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The revenue challenged the ITAT's setting aside of the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act — which the CIT(A) had also set aside — in the context of the respondent bank (Indian Overseas Bank, a Nationalised Bank) having availed the benefit of DTAA provisions read with section 90 of the Act, per the source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Form No. 67 timing is the dominant battleground. Across at least seven of the twelve cases (cases 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10), the core dispute is whether a delay in filing Form No. 67 — the prescribed form for claiming foreign tax credit — beyond the due date under section 139(1) disentitles the assessee from relief under section 90. This is the most recurring procedural flashpoint in the dataset.
Salaried individuals on overseas deputation are a frequently litigating class. Multiple appeals (cases 2, 4, 6, and 10) involve individual salaried assessees who were on assignment abroad, received foreign-source salary, and faced FTC denial upon return. This pattern suggests that employer-side compliance gaps in advising expatriates on Form 67 obligations are generating downstream litigation.
CPC intimations under section 143(1) are the origin point for FTC denials. In several cases (cases 1, 4, 8, and 10), the foreign tax credit was denied at the centralised processing stage through an intimation, rather than through a full scrutiny assessment. This indicates a systemic automated disallowance pattern at the CPC level that assessees are then challenging through the appellate hierarchy.
Treaty-rate versus domestic-rate disputes arise at the corporate level. Cases 3 and 7 involve corporate or commercial entities (SGS India Private Limited and Vedanta Limited/Cairn India) where the section 90 question is not about Form 67 but about whether a DTAA-prescribed rate or an Act-prescribed rate (for DDT or specific income streams) applies — a structurally distinct dispute from the individual FTC cases.
Both ITAT and High Court forums are active. Of the twelve rulings, nine originate at the ITAT level (across Delhi, Pune, Mumbai, Bangalore, Vizag, Surat, Patna, and Agra benches) while three are High Court matters (Madras HC in cases 7 and 12, Bombay HC in case 11). The geographic spread across ITAT benches confirms that the Form 67 / FTC denial issue is not bench-specific but a nationwide litigation trend.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a structured research index, not a digest of settled law. Each entry provides identifying metadata — bench, date, sections, and outcome direction — along with a brief procedural or factual note drawn from the source preview. Since all twelve orders carry "Outcome not specified in source" as the outcome direction, researchers should retrieve the full text of each judgment from indiankanoon.org, the official ITAT e-filing portal, or the respective High Court portals before drawing any conclusions about the holding or its precedential value. The source previews reproduced here are truncated and may not reflect the tribunal's or court's ultimate reasoning or operative direction.

When using these cases for research or submissions, verify whether the order has been stayed, reversed, or appealed to a higher forum. ITAT orders may be challenged before the respective High Court under Section 260A, and High Court orders may be challenged before the Supreme Court. An order that appears final at the ITAT stage may be sub judice at a higher level. Additionally, check whether any CBDT circular or notification (including those under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules governing Form No. 67 and foreign tax credit claims) has been issued subsequent to these orders, as such instructions can affect the applicable procedural framework.

For matters involving treaty interpretation under Section 90, also check whether the relevant DTAA has been amended by a Protocol, whether a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) proceeding is in progress, and whether any Principal Purpose Test or Limitation of Benefits clause under the treaty is relevant to the facts. Treaty language varies significantly across India's bilateral tax treaties, and conclusions drawn from one DTAA context should not be mechanically transplanted to another.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 90 Foreign Tax Credit & DTAA: 12 Recent ITAT and HC Rulings (2026)