Treaty residuary article governs shipping profits; dependent agent PE alone does not create effective connection for taxation.

Profits from operation of ships in international traffic were treated as falling under the India-Switzerland treaty residuary article, because exclusion from the business-profits article did not itself create a separate taxing right under another article. The mutual understanding between the competent authorities supported this reading, and the more beneficial treaty treatment prevailed over Section 44B. Although the Indian agency was regarded as a dependent-agent permanent establishment, Article 22(2) required the relevant right or property to be effectively connected with that permanent establishment. The ships remained assets of the non-resident shipping company and were not economically allocated to the Indian permanent establishment, so mere booking or marketing functions were insufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether profits from operation of ships in international traffic were governed by Article 22 of the India-Switzerland tax treaty and taxable only in the State of residence. (ii) Whether, assuming Article 22 applied, the Indian agency constituted a permanent establishment and the ships were effectively connected with that permanent establishment so as to attract Article 22(2).

Issue (i): Whether profits from operation of ships in international traffic were governed by Article 22 of the India-Switzerland tax treaty and taxable only in the State of residence.

Analysis: Article 22 applies to items of income of a resident of a contracting State that are not dealt with in the foregoing articles. The exclusion of shipping profits from Article 7 did not itself amount to positive allocation of taxing rights under another article. The mutual understanding recorded between the competent authorities also supported the view that such profits were covered by Article 22. The domestic law provision in Section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not prevail where the treaty granted a more beneficial treatment.

Conclusion: Article 22 governed the shipping profits, and they were taxable only in Switzerland under Article 22(1), subject to Article 22(2).

Issue (ii): Whether, assuming Article 22 applied, the Indian agency constituted a permanent establishment and the ships were effectively connected with that permanent establishment so as to attract Article 22(2).

Analysis: The agency arrangement showed that the Indian entity acted as a dependent agent and constituted a permanent establishment. However, for Article 22(2) to apply, the right or property in respect of which the income was paid had to be effectively connected with that permanent establishment. Applying the concept of economic ownership, the ships remained the assets of the non-resident shipping company and were not allocated to the Indian permanent establishment. Mere booking, marketing, or ancillary operational functions did not amount to effective connection.

Conclusion: The ships were not effectively connected with the permanent establishment, so Article 22(2) did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The shipping income fell within the residuary treaty provision and remained taxable only in the country of residence, so the Revenue's addition was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For a treaty residuary article to be displaced, an earlier treaty article must positively allocate taxing rights over the income; mere exclusion from a business-profits article is insufficient, and Article 22(2) applies only where the relevant right or property is economically owned by and effectively connected with the permanent establishment.

---