Treaty relief for feeder vessel freight income cannot be denied merely because an earlier Tribunal ruling is under appeal.

Article 8 treaty relief for freight income from feeder vessel and slot hire arrangements remained available because the same issue had already been decided in the assessee's favour for an earlier year, and that Tribunal ruling had not been reversed, modified, or stayed. Mere pendency of an appeal before the High Court did not erode the binding force of the existing decision or justify denial of treaty benefits. The DRP's direction granting Article 8 protection was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could deny Article 8 treaty benefits on freight income derived through feeder vessel and slot hire arrangements merely because an appeal against the earlier Tribunal order was pending in the High Court.

Analysis: The same controversy had already been decided in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, where treaty protection under Article 8 had been extended to income from feeder vessels obtained through slot hire arrangements. That order continued to hold the field and had not been reversed, modified, or stayed by any higher authority. Mere filing of an appeal before the High Court did not displace the binding force of the existing Tribunal decision for the time being.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the DRP's direction allowing Article 8 benefit was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsisting judicial decision governs the issue until it is reversed or stayed, and the mere pendency of an appeal against that decision does not justify denial of the relief granted by it.

---