9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1925 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 172(4) - freight beneficiary - CIT-A denying Appellant the benefit of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Tax between India and Singapore - whether CIT (A) erred in not directing ITO to assess the income as nil of freight beneficiary i.e. BP Singapore Pte Ltd. while losing sight of the fact that BP Singapore Pte Ltd. is a Singapore tax resident company engaged in operation of ships in international traffic and hence entitled to benefit of Article 8 of the DTAA and their income from operation of ships in international traffic cannot be taxed in India? - HELD THAT - Learned representatives fairly agree that whatever we decide in the case of BP Singapore Pte Ltd 2017 (11) TMI 1924 - ITAT RAJKOT will be equally applicable here as well.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of DTAA benefits. 2. Application of Article 24 of DTAA. 3. Taxability of freight income under Article 8 of DTAA. 4. Misinterpretation of DTAA provisions. 5. Relevance of remittance to Singapore. 6. Admissibility of additional evidence. 7. Precedents and case law relevance. 8. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of DTAA Benefits: The assessee challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order, which upheld the assessment under section 172(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, denying the benefit of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation (DTAA) between India and Singapore. The CIT(A) confirmed the ITO's decision that the freight income of BP Singapore Pte Ltd., a Singapore tax resident engaged in the operation of ships in international traffic, was not entitled to the benefit of Article 8 of the DTAA. 2. Application of Article 24 of DTAA: The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's application of Article 24 of the DTAA, which provides for the Limitation of Relief. The ITO held that since the freight beneficiary was from Singapore and the funds were not remitted to Singapore, the benefit of the DTAA could not be granted. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Article 24 has no relevance if the income is taxable on an accrual basis. 3. Taxability of Freight Income under Article 8 of DTAA: The assessee argued that the freight income should be assessed as nil in India under Article 8 of the DTAA, as the income from the operation of ships in international traffic cannot be taxed in India. The ITO's view that there was no evidence of the money being remitted to Singapore and taxed there was challenged. The assessee contended that the freight income had been offered for tax purposes and charged to tax in Singapore. 4. Misinterpretation of DTAA Provisions: The CIT(A) was criticized for misinterpreting the DTAA provisions and wrongly holding that the DTAA required funds to be remitted to Singapore. The assessee argued that the income should be assessed to nil in India regardless of whether the remittance was received in Singapore or elsewhere. 5. Relevance of Remittance to Singapore: The CIT(A) was faulted for ignoring the settled position of law that once the income has been charged to tax in the contracting state (Singapore), it is not necessary to establish that the remittance has been made to Singapore to avail of the DTAA benefits. The assessee argued that Article 24 of the DTAA has no significance where the income is taxable on an accrual basis. 6. Admissibility of Additional Evidence: The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including a letter from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore certifying that the freight income from India had been brought to tax in Singapore. However, it was revealed that the assessee had availed an exemption under section 13F of the Singapore Income Tax Act, meaning the income was not actually taxed in Singapore. 7. Precedents and Case Law Relevance: The assessee relied on previous judicial precedents where similar claims were accepted without question. However, the Tribunal noted that these precedents were based on an erroneous impression of the actual taxability of the income in Singapore. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the context in interpreting treaty terms and rejected the assessee's reliance on these precedents. 8. Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee submitted that the interpretation of the DTAA should not lead to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal did not address this issue in detail as it focused on the substantive taxability issues. Conclusion: The Tribunal remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication in light of the new facts and additional evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed examination of whether the income, exempt from tax in Singapore, should still be eligible for treaty protection in India. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and all issues were left open for reconsideration.
|
