TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operation of ships in international waters and in particular container ships. Admittedly, the business operation as well as management team were based in Singapore. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, Assessee filed on 28th September 2008 return of income declaring total income as Nil. 2. Assessee used to accept cargo for carriage internationally to and from India. In India, Assessee's agent is its wholly-owned subsidiary, 'APL India Private Limited'. Being a tax resident of Singapore in terms of Article 4(1) of India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA"), Assessee sought the benefit of Article 8 of the DTAA for its gross freight earnings collected from India. Accordingly, the return of income was filed at Nil i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at hand and primarily relied upon a certificate/confirmation dated 21st February 2013 given by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore ("IRAS"). 6. The ITAT, also relying on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Balaji Shipping UK Ltd v DIT [2012] 253 CTR 460 (Bom), held that even those 8 ships which were not included by the Assessing Officer would fall within the ambit of operation of ships in terms of Article 8 of the DTAA. Aggrieved by this order of the ITAT, this appeal is preferred and the following 5 substantial questions of law are proposed. If we consider the first 4 questions of law, all relate to the limitation imposed by Article 24 of the DTAA. QUESTIONS OF LAW "A. Whether, in the facts and circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xable only' in Article 8(1) of the said DTAA ? E. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the substantial question of law raised above, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in allowing the benefit in respect of freight receipts from 97 ships under Article 8 of the India - Singapore DTAA even though Article 8 (4) of the said DTAA requires the assessee to be the owner, lessee or a charterer of the ships ?" 7. Article 24 has been considered in various judgments by the Tribunal and the High Courts. It came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M.T. Maersk Mikaje & Ors v Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) [2017] 390 ITR 427 (Guj) and by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m sources in a Contracting India State shall be exempt from tax, or taxed at a reduced rate III that- Contracting State and under the laws in force in the other Contracting State, the said income is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the exemption or reduction of tax to be allowed under this Agreement in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply to so much of the income as is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State. 2. However, this limitation does not apply to income derived by the Government of a Contracting State or any person approached by the competent authority of that -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the extent of repatriation of such income to Singapore. The AO has held that the assessee has not produced any evidence to show such required repatriation as mandated by Article 24 of DTAA for entitlement of exempted income. This is an incorrect statement as rightly held by the ITAT. The assessee placed on record even before the AO a certificate dated 16th April 2012 from Singapore Tax Authorities certifying that the income derived by the assessee from buying and selling of Indian Debt Securities and from Foreign Exchange transactions in India would be considered under Singapore Taxes Law as accruing in or derived from Singapore and such income would be brought to tax in Singapore without reference to the amount remitted or received in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a non binding opinion without any statutory authority. 10. This Court in Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) (Supra) has held that such certificate issued by Singapore Tax Authorities will constitute sufficient evidence for accepting the legal position. This Court while coming to such a conclusion, also relied upon in the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lakshmi Textile Exporters Ltd. 245 ITR 522. 11. Therefore, in our view, no substantial questions of law arise as regards the first 4 questions proposed. 12. As regards the 5th question proposed, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Balaji Shipping UK Ltd. (Supra), in our view, no question would arise. In....