Treaty relief for shipping income under the India-Singapore DTAA is not curtailed when Singapore taxes on an accrual basis.
Article 24 of the India-Singapore DTAA does not restrict Article 8 treaty relief where the Singapore tax authorities certify that the relevant income is taxed on an accrual basis without reference to remittance; on that footing, the limitation-of-relief clause does not apply. Shipping freight income covered by Article 8 remains outside Indian tax where treaty conditions are satisfied, and the disputed receipts could not be denied treaty protection merely on the Revenue's objections. The commentary also notes that Section 44B was not applied to bring the shipping income to tax in India in these circumstances.
Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA was curtailed by Article 24 in view of the Singapore tax treatment evidenced by the IRAS certificate; (ii) whether the freight income from the shipping activity was taxable in India, including the receipts relating to the disputed ships and the applicability of Section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the benefit of Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA was curtailed by Article 24 in view of the Singapore tax treatment evidenced by the IRAS certificate.
Analysis: Article 24 applies only where income exempted or taxed at a reduced rate in India is, under the laws in force in the other contracting state, taxed by reference to the amount remitted to or received there and not by reference to the full amount. The certificate issued by the Singapore tax authorities showed that the relevant income was taxable in Singapore on an accrual basis without reference to remittance. On that footing, the limitation in Article 24(1) did not operate, and the certificate was accepted as sufficient evidence of the legal position.
Conclusion: The limitation under Article 24 did not restrict the assessee's claim to the treaty benefit; the finding was against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the freight income from the shipping activity was taxable in India, including the receipts relating to the disputed ships and the applicability of Section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The Court followed the earlier view that shipping income covered by Article 8 was not taxable in India when treaty conditions were satisfied, and that the disputed receipts could not be denied treaty protection merely on the basis urged by the Revenue. The Court also found no separate substantial question on the ownership or chartering contention in the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion: The freight income was not brought to tax in India as proposed by the Revenue; the finding was against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: Both appeals failed, and the Revenue's challenge to the tribunal's relief was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the other contracting state taxes the relevant income on an accrual basis without reference to remittance, the limitation-of-relief provision in the DTAA does not restrict treaty exemption in India, and shipping income satisfying Article 8 cannot be denied treaty protection on that ground.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
