9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rranted and irrelevant observations in the order passed by her. 2. The Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts in coming to the conclusion that, the appellant was an agent of vessel M. V. New Caledonia Maru of freight beneficiary M/s. Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., Singapore (Freight Beneficiary) and thereby treating him liable to be assessed as such and also to pay the tax demanded by him and even the Ld. CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in upholding the said order based on inappropriate appraisal of facts, law and case law by making unwanted, unwarranted and irrelevant observations in the order passed by her. 3. The Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts in coming to the conclusion that, the appellant and the owner/freight beneficiary was not entitled to the benefits of DTAA between India & Singapore in respect of the freight earned by the journey under taken by Vessel- M. V. New Caledonia Maru Salied on 01.10.2016 and even the Ld. CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in upholding the said order based on inappropriate appraisal of facts, law and case law by making unwanted, unwarranted and irrelevant observations in the order passed by her. 4. The Ld. AO erred in law and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he benefit of Article 8 of DTA between India - Singapore and thereby she erred in law and in facts in ignoring the judicial precedents cited before her. 9. The Ld. CIT have erred in law and on facts in holding that, the income of the trip of the ship charter by the appellant had not suffered tax in Singapore and therefore the appellant was not entitled to the benefits of the treaty between India- Singapore as evident from Article 24 of the said treaty. 10. Your appellant craves a leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal, if the occasion demands." 3. M/s Magnum Shipping Services filed provisional return on 29.09.2016 for the vessel M. V. New Caledonia Maru arrived at the port of Mundra. The vessel sailed on 01.10.2016 and the final return was filed on 21.10.2016 for the vessel u/s 172 of the Act. The freight beneficiary for the said vessel was M/s. Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Of Singapore. The provisional return accompanied with certain details like charter party agreement, certificate of incorporation, Tax Residency certificate of freight beneficiary company, Indemnity Bond and an undertaking stating that M/s. Magnum Shipping Services, Mundra was acting as agents to the fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of M/s Magnum Shipping Services, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars in the sense that it had claimed exemption of freight tax where it was not allowable as the assessee completely ignored, the provisions of law and the DTAA. Thus, the Assessing Officer worked out the freight income at Rs. 1,42,22,687.50 and worked out taxable income at 7.5% i.e. Rs. 10,66,701.56. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined total tax payable at Rs. 4,50,468.07 vide assessment order dated 29.09.2017 passed under Section 172(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that as regards Ground No. 1 relating to the order passed by the Assessing Officer the assessee has challenged the same stating therein that the said order is beyond jurisdiction, against rule of natural justice, bad in law, liable to be quashed. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance of the fact and DTAA between India and Singapore thereby ignoring and misinterpreting the submissions an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer and hence the CIT(A) was not right in taking adverse view. It is an accepted fact that the beneficiary company is tax resident of Singapore and further effective control and management of its business for the assessment year under appeal is exercised from Singapore. The Assessing Officer, at no point of time doubted the residential status as well as permanent establishment status of freight beneficiary Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd. as NRI which is situated at Singapore. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the freight beneficiary of the vessel was changed with Charter Party dated 13.07.2012 between M/s. Polaris Shippling Col Ltd. and M/s. Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd., a charter of the city of Singapore and vessel was operated between two ports in India during the charter period of about 14/20 days not solely as have been alleged but as part of its voyage in international traffic. In the present case also, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the vessel was operated between two ports in India during the Charter Period of about 30 days and there is no distinguishing facts. The vessel was sailed at Mundra Port on 01.10.2016. The Charter Party agreement was accepted on 26.09.2016, even before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed provisional return on 29.09.2016 for the vessel MV Caledonia Maru bearing Panama Flag which had arrived at Mundra port. Finally, the vessel sailed on 01.10.2016 and the final return was filed on 21.10.2016. As per the document furnished before the Assessing Officer i.e. ITO, International Taxation, Gandhidham, the freight beneficiary of the above vessel was M/s Jaldi Oversees Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The provisional return filed by the Indian agent of the foreign ship i.e. M/s Magnum Shipping Services, Mundra was accompanied by details like charter party agreement, certificate of incorporation, Tax Residency Certificate, Indemnity Bond and an undertaking that the above agent would act as an agent of the foreign shipping company. From the documents furnished the AO noted that the vessel carried cargo from Mundra Port in Kutch to Mumbai (outer anchorage). The Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny proceedings had examined the charter party between the owner and disponent owner as well as the Port Clearance Certificate (PCC) issued by the Customs Authority at Dharamtar Port, Raigadh from which the following facts emerged: (i) M/s Jaldi Oversees Pte. Ltd., Singapore had hire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aded in Mumbai. The freight in US dollars as per the 2 invoices comes to US $ 213875 which was disclosed by the assessee in the final return before the AO, which was brought to tax in the assessment order. No other details were mentioned in the return. This means that no other cargo was carried by the assessee in the vessel from Mundra which was meant for a foreign country and therefore the journey from Okha to Mumbai was a coastal run and it was only after 27.10,2016, i.e. the after issue of reconversion certificate by Customs, Dharamtar Port, the international journey of the vessel commenced. The return in respect of income earned if any for carriage of goods from Mumbai to any other foreign port would be required to be filed before the AO in Mumbai. Thus, the journey from Okha to Mumbai was a coastal run. (vii) The AR of the assessee has on 8th June, 2023 made a further submission wherein further documentary evidences have been enclosed, notably the tax assessment intimation issued by the "INLAND REVENUE AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE" from pages 1 to 7. During the course of hearing on 08.06.2023, the Ld. AR had argued that as the assessee had paid taxes in Singapore, the same could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices, Mundra. From the perusal of records it appears that the said Jaldhi Oversead Pte. Ltd. has issued a certificate specifically confirm the fact that they have considered the income of Rs. 1,42,22,687/- on accrual basis earned on New Caledonia Maru during its voyage from 28.09.2016 to 27.10.2016 while it is on international traffic / foreign run and passed through Indian water and accordingly the assessee offered its taxes to the Singapore Revenue Authorities. The income offered for tax was Singapore $ 2,357,500. The certificate of the Singapore Revenue Authorities issued on 10.12.2016 clearly mentioned that the assessee has discharged estimated tax as per the original assessment dated 29.03.2016 wherein the estimated tax payable was $ 354,765/- in Singapore Dollar. Those documents clearly reveal that the assessee has discharged its estimated tax on 10.12.2016 with the Singapore Revenue Authorities. Thus, the assessee has paid the tax on the income received from the international voyage of vessel M.V. New Caledonia Maru which was sailed on 01.10.2016 and the journey concluded on 28.09.2016 to 27.10.2016. The contention of Ld. A.R. that the benefit under Article 8 as well as Arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
