2023 (6) TMI 1222 - HC - Income Tax

Income taxable in India - Capital gain from Singapore as exempted in India - benefit of Article 13(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore - assessee tax resident of Singapore Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) in debt segment with Securities and Exchange Board of India - HELD THAT - The exemption or reduction of tax to be allowed under the DTAA in India shall only apply to so much of the income as is remitted to or received in Singapore where the laws in force in Singapore provides that the said income is subject to tax by reference to the amount which is remitted or received in Singapore. When under the laws in force in Singapore the income is subject to tax by reference to the full amount thereof, whether or not remitted to or received in Singapore, then in that case Article 24(1) would not apply. AO while framing the draft assessment order has disallowed the benefit of Article 13(4) of DTAA on capital gain earned in India holding that provisions of Article 24 of DTAA speaks about the restriction of exemption of such capital gain to the extent of repatriation of such income to Singapore. 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 Singapore. Singapore authorities have themselves certified that the capital gain income would be brought to tax in Singapore without reference to the amount remitted or received in Singapore. The AO could not have come to a conclusion otherwise. As stated in the circular No. 789 dated 13th April 2000, though it applied to Indo-Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Convention with reference to certificate of residence, the purport and principle is clear. Such certificates issued by the Singapore Tax Authorities will constitute sufficient evidence for accepting the legal position. We see no reason to admit this appeal on this ground. No substantial questions of law arise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore, specifically focusing on the tax treatment of capital gains earned in India by a resident of Singapore.

Issue 1: Interpretation of DTAA Provisions
The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision regarding the entitlement of the assessee to the benefit of Article 13(4) of the DTAA without considering the provisions of Article 24, which restrict the exemption of capital gains to the extent of repatriation to Singapore.

Issue 2: Application of DTAA Articles
The contention revolves around whether Article 24 of the DTAA applies to the assessee's case, especially in light of the requirement for remittance of income to Singapore to claim exemption under the treaty.

Issue 3: Certification by Singapore Tax Authorities
The assessee argued that the certification from Singapore tax authorities confirming taxation of income in Singapore, irrespective of remittance, should be considered as sufficient evidence for accepting the legal position, as per relevant Direct Taxes Circular and judicial precedent.

Judgment Summary:
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that no substantial questions of law were raised in the appeal. The court found no infirmity in the ITAT's order, emphasizing that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Article 13(4) of the DTAA between India and Singapore. The court rejected the argument that Article 24 of the DTAA should restrict the exemption claimed by the assessee, highlighting that the income would be taxed in Singapore as per the certification from Singapore tax authorities, regardless of remittance. The court emphasized that the certification provided sufficient evidence for accepting the legal position, in line with relevant circulars and judicial precedents. Additionally, the court dismissed the appeal's reliance on pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) cases, stating that even without such reliance, the legal position would remain unchanged. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no substantial questions of law arose in the case.