Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Article 24(1) of the India-Singapore DTAA could be invoked to deny the benefit of Article 8 in respect of shipping income earned by a Singapore resident enterprise from voyages undertaken from India.
Analysis: Article 24(1) applies only where the other Contracting State taxes the income by reference to the amount remitted or received there, rather than on the basis of the full income accruing. The certificate issued by the Singapore tax authority showed that the shipping income was assessable in Singapore on accrual basis and not on remittance basis. In that situation, the premise for applying the limitation clause under Article 24(1) failed. The exclusivity of taxation under Article 8 also meant that India had no jurisdiction to deny treaty protection by examining remittance-wise tax treatment once Singapore residence and accrual-based assessability were established.
Conclusion: Article 24(1) was inapplicable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Article 8.
Final Conclusion: The denial of treaty relief was set aside and the assessee's shipping income remained protected under the treaty allocation in favour of Singapore taxation.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the foreign contracting state taxes shipping income on accrual basis, the remittance-based limitation clause in the treaty does not apply and Article 8 cannot be curtailed on the ground of non-remittance.