Tribunal directs AO to re-examine transactions, deletes interest levy

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-examine the arm's length nature of transactions between the agent and the assessee and to delete the interest levied under section 234B. The higher tax rate for non-resident companies was upheld as non-discriminatory.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Relief under Article 9 of the India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
2. Existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE)
3. Taxability of ancillary charges including inland haulage charges (IHC)
4. Levy of interest under section 234B
5. Rate of tax for non-resident companies

Detailed Analysis:

1. Relief under Article 9 of the India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA):
The appellant claimed relief under Article 9 of the DTAA for freight earnings of Rs. 4,20,47,559. The CIT(A) rejected this claim on the basis that the connectivity between the feeder vessels and the mother vessels was not furnished. The appellant argued that it is unnecessary to establish such connectivity for each voyage and that the claim should be examined with reference to the 'business' of operation of ships. However, this issue was not further pursued as it was deemed not relevant based on the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07.

2. Existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE):
The CIT(A) held that the freight earnings are assessable as business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA, asserting the existence of a PE in India. The appellant contended that Barwil Forbes Shipping Services Ltd (BFSSL) acted in the ordinary course of business and provided similar services to other foreign shipping lines, thus not constituting a dependent agent. The Tribunal noted that the issue of PE had been decided in the assessee's favor in A.Y. 2006-07, emphasizing that the transactions between the agent and the enterprise must be at arm's length. Since the Revenue did not demonstrate that the transactions were not at arm's length, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to re-examine this aspect.

3. Taxability of Ancillary Charges Including Inland Haulage Charges (IHC):
The CIT(A) held that ancillary charges, including IHC, are liable to tax in India. This issue was linked to the existence of a PE. The Tribunal's decision on the PE issue also covered this ground, directing the AO to re-evaluate the transactions' arm's length nature.

4. Levy of Interest Under Section 234B:
The CIT(A) confirmed the levy of interest under section 234B. However, the Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in DIT vs. NGC Network Asia LLC, which held that when the duty was on the payer to deduct tax at source, no interest could be imposed on the assessee for the payer's failure. Consequently, the AO was directed to delete the interest levied under section 234B.

5. Rate of Tax for Non-Resident Companies:
The CIT(A) held that a higher tax rate for non-resident companies does not amount to discrimination, referencing the Explanation to section 90 of the Act, which clarifies that charging a higher rate for foreign companies is not discriminatory. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Indo-French DTAA does not specify a tax rate, thus no conflict exists between domestic law and the DTAA. The appellant's reliance on the Siemens Aktionesellschaft case was deemed inapplicable as it pertained to the rate of tax, not the imposition of tax itself.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-examine the arm's length nature of transactions between the agent and the assessee and to delete the interest levied under section 234B. The higher tax rate for non-resident companies was upheld as non-discriminatory. The order was pronounced on 19th November 2014.

---