Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 221 - HC - Income TaxIncome accrued in India - income in respect of ships - freight earnings collected from India - Assessee produced ship registration certificates of only 128 ships and not for the remaining 8 ships - denial of Benefit of Article 8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore - Whether, ITAT has erred in not restricting the benefit of Article 8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore to the assessee, in accordance with the limitation imposed by Article 24 of the said DTAA? HELD THAT:- As relying on M.T. MAERSK MIKAGE [2016 (9) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and M/S. CITICORP INVESTMENT BANK (SINGAPORE) LTD.) C/O. CITIBANK NA SECURITIES AND FUND SERVICES, [2023 (6) TMI 1222 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Courts while analysing Article 24 held that under 'Article 24 where the income from sources in India shall be exempted from tax or taxed at a reduced rate in India and under the laws in force in Singapore, the said income is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in Singapore and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the exemption or reduction of tax to be allowed under the DTAA in India shall apply to so much of the income as is remitted to or received in Singapore. Therefore, the exemption or reduction of tax to be allowed under the DTAA in India shall only apply to so much of the income as is remitted to or received in Singapore where the laws in force in Singapore provides that the said income is subject to tax by reference to the amount which is remitted or received in Singapore. When under the laws in force in Singapore, the income is subject to tax by reference to the full amount thereof, whether or not remitted to or received in Singapore, then in that case Article 24(1) would not apply. In both the cases, i.e., Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) (Supra) and M.T. Maersk Mikage (Supra), the Courts relied on letters/confirmation issued by the IRAS which confirmed the taxability of income in Singapore on accrual basis. In those two cases also Assessee had submitted certificate issued by the IRAS. Even in the case at hand, Assessee has submitted certificate from the IRAS but the CIT (A) chose to disregard that certificate on the basis that it has been issued by an officer of the IRAS and it is a non binding opinion without any statutory authority. This Court in Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) (Supra) has held that such certificate issued by Singapore Tax Authorities will constitute sufficient evidence for accepting the legal position. This Court while coming to such a conclusion, also relied upon in the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lakshmi Textile Exporters Ltd. [1997 (7) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Therefore, in our view, no substantial questions of law arise as regards the first 4 questions proposed. Benefit in respect of freight receipts from 97 ships u/s 8 of the India - Singapore DTAA even though Article 8 (4) of the said DTAA requires the assessee to be the owner, lessee or a charterer of the ships - HELD THAT:- As in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Balaji Shipping UK Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 681 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in our view, no question would arise. In another matter of Assessee which came up before this Court in APL Co. Pte. Ltd. [2016 (1) TMI 1169 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the Court relying upon Balaji Shipping UK Ltd. (Supra), held that no substantial question of law would arise. As submitted that an SLP has been admitted against the judgment of this Court in Balaji Shipping Uk Ltd. (Supra) and, therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court has doubted the correctness of judgment and this Court therefore, cannot rely upon Balaji Shipping UK Ltd. (Supra). We are unable to accept such submission of Mr. Chhotaray. Appeal dismissed.
|