ITAT Upholds Deletion of Addition on Foreign Investments; Allows Foreign Tax Credit:

ITAT Upholds Deletion of Addition on Foreign Investments; Allows Foreign Tax Credit

Tribunal holds that disclosed foreign investments made by assessee for minor daughters cannot be treated as unexplained and upholds allowance of foreign tax credit

ITAT Dismisses Revenue Appeal on Foreign Investment and Foreign Tax Credit

authorMeetu KumaridateDec 14, 2025
Last update on Dec 14, 2025
ITAT Upholds Deletion of Addition on Foreign Investments; Allows Foreign Tax Credit The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017–18 declaring a total taxable income of Rs. 26.80 crore, which included income clubbed from his three minor daughters under section 64(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the grounds that the assessee had foreign assets and had claimed double taxation relief under sections 90/91. The Assessing Officer treated investments made to foreign company as unexplained under section 69, denied foreign tax credit of Rs. 23.02 lakh for taxes paid in Singapore, invoked section 115BBE, and completed the assessment accordingly. The CIT(A) deleted the addition relating to foreign investments and allowed the foreign tax credit. Aggrieved, the Revenue appealed before the Tribunal.
Foreign Assets or Income Details Not Showing Up in Revised ITR? Income Tax Dept Clarifies Solution
Main Issues: Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3.31 crore made under section 69 towards alleged unexplained foreign investments and whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing foreign tax credit of Rs. 23.02 lakh under sections 90/91, despite the Revenue’s objection regarding Form No. 67.
ITAT Slams "Mechanical" Reassessment: Hospital Wins Relief as PCIT’s Enhancement Also Quashed
ITAT Held: The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient disclosed income to explain the foreign investments made in the names of his minor daughters. The investments were duly declared in Schedule FA of the return of income, and corresponding bank accounts were also disclosed. In view of the returned income of Rs. 26.80 crore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue’s allegation of unexplained investment. The Tribunal noted that Form No. 67 had been filed on 22.12.2017, well within the permissible time, and complete details of foreign income and taxes paid in Singapore were furnished in the return and during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s direction to allow relief under sections 90/91. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…