TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Shipping agent not liable for income tax on charter-party payment</h1> <h3>Union Saw Mills And Others Versus Gosalia Shipping Pvt. Limited</h3> The court held that the respondent, acting as a shipping agent for a non-resident company, was not liable to pay income tax under section 172 of the ... Liability to pay income tax - Respondent, a company does the business of clearing and forwarding and as steamship agents - whether the respondent is liable to the income-tax demanded of it by the Income-tax Officer, depends for its decision on the construction of section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - no liability of respondent Issues Involved:1. Liability of the respondent to pay income-tax under section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Interpretation of the term 'on account of such carriage' in section 172(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Nature of the payment made under the charter-party agreement.Detailed Analysis:1. Liability of the Respondent to Pay Income-Tax Under Section 172 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961:The primary issue in this case was whether the respondent, acting as the shipping agent for a non-resident company, was liable to pay income-tax under section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that section 172 creates a tax liability in respect of occasional shipping by non-residents. It mandates the levy and recovery of tax on profits made from occasional shipping through a summary assessment, where one-sixth of the gross amount received by the non-resident ship owner or charterer is deemed to be the assessable profit.The court observed that the Aluminium Company of Canada, a non-resident, had time-chartered the ship 'M. V. Sparto' and loaded it with its own goods at Betul, Goa. The respondent had executed a guarantee bond for the payment of income-tax on behalf of the time-charterers. The court held that since the Aluminium Company satisfied the conditions specified in section 172(1), the provisions of section 172 applied for the purpose of tax levy, notwithstanding other provisions of the Income-tax Act.2. Interpretation of the Term 'On Account of Such Carriage' in Section 172(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961:The court examined whether the amount paid by the time-charterers to the ship owners was 'on account of such carriage' as stipulated in section 172(2). The court emphasized that the charging provision in sub-section (2) deems one-sixth of the amount paid or payable on account of the carriage of goods as income accruing in India to the owner or charterer.The court scrutinized the charter-party agreement and concluded that the amount paid by the time-charterers was not on account of the carriage of goods but for the use and hire of the ship. The agreement specified a payment rate of 4.50 U.S. dollars per ton on the total deadweight carrying capacity of the ship for its use and hire. The court found no evidence suggesting that the payment was intended to cover the carriage of goods, thus rejecting the appellant's argument that the payment was for the carriage of goods.3. Nature of the Payment Made Under the Charter-Party Agreement:The court analyzed the terms of the charter-party agreement to determine the nature of the payment. It noted that the agreement allowed the charterers to sublet the vessel and placed the captain under the charterers' orders regarding employment and agency. The agreement also stipulated that if the vessel was lost, any advance payments not earned would be returned to the charterers. These terms indicated that the payment was for the use and hire of the ship, not for the carriage of goods.The court further explained that the payment's character could not change based on the ship's use or whether it was loaded with goods in India. The time-charterers paid hire charges for the ship's use and received no amount for the carriage of goods since they loaded the ship with their own goods. The court concluded that the payment was not on account of the carriage of goods but for the hire and use of the ship.Conclusion:The court confirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Commissioner, holding that the respondent was not liable to pay the income-tax demanded under section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
