Apl Co. Pte LTD., Mumbai Vs Adit (Int'L Taxation) - 1 (1), ... On 16 February, 2017

Apl Co. Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs Adit (Int'L Taxation)-1(1), ...
on 16 February, 2017
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai

Apl Co. Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs Adit (Int'L Taxation)-1(1), ... on 16 February, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "L", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA NO. 4435/MUM/2013 : (A.Y : 2008-09)
APL Co. Pte Ltd. Vs ADIT(IT)-1(1), Mumbai

C/o APL India Pvt. Ltd., . (Respondent)
247, Park Hincon House, B-
Wing, 8th floor, LBS Marg,
Vikhroli (W), Mumbai 400 083
(Appellant)
PAN : AAECA1501B
Assessee by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala,

Ms. Aarti Visanji,
Shri Faizan Nursumar&
Shri Vivek Chouhan
Revenue by : Ms. Vandana Sagar, CIT- DR
: Mr. Jasbir Singh, CIT- DR
Date of Hearing : 14/02/2017

Date of Pronouncement: 16/02/2017
ORDER
PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by assessee against impugned order dated 28.3.2013, passed by
Ld. CIT(Appeals)- 10, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for the Assessment Year 2008-09.In the grounds of appeal,
assessee has raised the following grounds:-
2 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
"1. On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner
of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] erred in making an addition by denying the benefit of Article 8 of
India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('Tax Treaty') to freight of Rs. 98.66 crores
collected by the appellant from 101 vessels which sailed out of India.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 1

2. On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in
making an addition by denying the benefit of the Tax Treaty to the entire freight of Rs. 1106.89
crores earned by the appellant from its India operations by invoking provisions of Article 24
(limitation of relief) of the Tax Treaty.
3. On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in
holding that the appellant had failed to comply with the condition of remittance prescribed under
Article 24 of the Tax Treaty without appreciating that:
adjustment of cross claims and settlement on account of set-off tantamount to an

actual/constructive receipt in Singapore money was ultimately remitted to Singapore as certified by
the appellant's bankers 4 On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the case and in law, the
Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') in holding APL
India Pvt. Ltd. ('APL India") as an agency permanent establishment ('PE') of the appellant in India
under Article 5(8) of the Tax Treaty.
5. Without prejudice to the above, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that no income of
the appellant could be brought to tax in India as the arm's length commission paid to APL India
(and accepted by the tax department), which is taxable in India in the hands of APL India, fully 3
APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 extinguishes the tax liability of the appellant in India.
Notwithstanding the above and:
6. Further to Ground No. 1, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit of Article 8 of the Tax
Treaty with respect to the following freight collected by the appellant:
Rs. 63.93 crores from goods transported on 81 vessels (for which connecting carrier agreements
were furnished) without appreciating that the appellant was responsible to carry cargo for the entire
journey from the port of origin to the port of ultimate destination.
Rs. 33.37 crores from goods transported on 16 vessels (for which joint service agreement and ship
validation certificates were furnished) without appreciating that the appellant was responsible to
carry cargo for the entire journey from the port of origin to the port of ultimate destination and, in
any event of the matter, these vessels were covered under a pool / joint business arrangement
entered into by the appellant within the meaning of Article 8(2) of the Tax Treaty.
Rs. 1.37 crores from goods transported on 4 vessels (for which documents to the satisfaction of the
AO were not furnished) without appreciating that the appellant being in the business of operation of
ships in international traffic is entitled to the benefit of Article 8 of the Tax Treaty with respect to its
entire freight income.

7. Further to Ground No. 1, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not treating the freight of Rs. 98.67 crores
from containers loaded on 101 vessels as income from use / maintenance / rental of containers in
connection with transportation within the meaning of Article 8(4)(c) of the Tax Treaty and thereby
erred in denying the benefit of Article 8 of the Tax Treaty to the appellant.
4 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
8. Further to Ground No. 2, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in:
Not appreciating that Article 24 of the Tax Treaty does not apply to the appellant as
the appellant's freight income is taxable in Singapore on accrual basis and not
remittance basis i.e. entire freight income is taxable in Singapore irrespective of
remittance of freight to Singapore.
Rejecting the clarification dated 21 February 2013 issued by the Singapore Revenue
Authorities as sufficient evidence in support of the accrual basis of taxation of
appellant's income in Singapore under the Singapore tax laws as well as the
non-applicability of Article 24 of the Tax Treaty to the appellant.
Wrongly interpreting the provisions of a foreign tax law (i.e. Singapore Income Tax
Act and Circulars issued there under) by holding that the freight income cannot be
regarded as Singapore sourced income under the provisions of Singapore Income Tax
Act and further disregarding the clarification issued by the Singapore Revenue
Authorities on the subject.
Holding that the appellant has filed incorrect tax returns in Singapore although these
were duly accepted by the Singapore revenue authorities.
enhancing the assessment under section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 although she had no
powers to do so.
not adjudicating Ground No. 1.6 and 2.6 raised before her to the effect that the appellant is not liable
to interest under section 234B of 5 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 the IT Act since the appellant was not liable to pay any advance tax on the
basis of (a) Double Income Tax Relief Certificate issued by the Tax Department itself and (b) the fact
that freight income of the appellant was tax deductible at source having regard to the specific
provisions of section 209(1)(d) of IT Act."

2. The brief facts and background of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident company
incorporated under the laws of Singapore and is also a tax-resident of Singapore. It is engaged in the
business of operation of ships in international waters, mainly transportation of cargo and container
ships all across the globe. The business operations as well as the management team are based in
Singapore. The assessee- company also accepts cargo for carriage internationally to and fro from
India. In India, assessee has a shipping agent in the form of a wholly owned subsidiary, APL India
Pvt. Ltd. Being a tax-resident of Singapore in terms of Article 4(1) of India- Singapore DTAA, it
sought the benefit of Article 8 for its gross freight earnings collected from India. Accordingly, the
return of income was filed on 28.9.2008 at NIL income on the ground that the gross earnings of
Rs.1106,88,52,343/- is not taxable in India in view of Article 8(1) of DTAA. The Assessing Officer in
the course of assessment proceedings noted that assessee has shown income from shipping in
respect of 136 ships and claimed the entire freight income as exempt. The Assessing Officer called
for details of shipping income and also copies of ship Registration Certificate, copies of Charter
Party agreements and Pooling agreements, etc. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee could
produce ship Registration Certificates and copies of Charter Party agreements and other evidences
in 6 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 respect of 128 ships and for the balance 8 ships assessee could not
produce any evidences. Accordingly, he held that the freight proceeds from following ships will not
be entitled for benefit under Article 8, details of which have been given at para 4 of the assessment
order and which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced hereunder :-
Sr. No. Name of the Gross Receipt Detention Charges ship Rs. Rs.
1 Conti Germany 84,80,169 -

2 Howrah Bridge 3,00,696 85,467
3 Rajiv Gandhi 1,17,967 -
4 SathaBhum 47,04,892 -
5 TS Nagoya 30,41,420 -
6 Ninos 24,66,622 89,607
7 San Isidro 3,01,568
8 IthaBhum 33,36,428 63,896
2,27,49,762 2,38,970
3. The Assessing Officer further held that assessee could not establish that it is
operating these 8 ships on its own and it is quite possible that these ships might be
operated by third parties. Accordingly, he applied the provisions of Sec. 44B of the
Act and taxed the said receipt @ 7.5%. The Assessing Officer further observed that
assessee had an exclusive agent in the form of APL India Pvt. Ltd., who performed all
the work relating to assessee in all the Indian ports where the assessees ships arrived.
After detailed discussion, he came to the conclusion that APL India Pvt. Ltd. is
dependent agent PE in terms of Article 5 of India-Singapore DTAA. Accordingly, he
brought to tax a sum of Rs.22,98,870/- in the following manner :-

7 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
Gross receipt and detention Rs.11,04,58,63,611/-
charges from shipping

business excluding the
receipt on which DTAA
relief is not granted
7.5% of the above as per Rs.82,84,39,711/-
Sec. 44-B of the Act
Tax payable @ 40% on the Rs.33,13,75,908/-
income
Relief under DTAA Rs.33,13,75,908/-
Income estimated as per Rs.22,98,873/
Rule 10 in respect of 8
ships on which benefit of
DTAA not granted
Total income Rs.22,98,873/
Rounded off to Rs.22,98,870/
4. Against the said order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) whereby
the ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the income, firstly, by holding that benefit of Article 8
cannot be given in respect of total freight of Rs.98.67 crores on the ground that there
is no linkage between the feeder vessel and mother vessel for transportation of cargo
as they have been transported through third party under Charter Party agreement
and;
secondly, she proceeded to denythe entire exemption/benefit of Article 8 by holding that the entire
freight of Rs.1106.89 crores is to be assessed in India by invoking the limitation clause of Article 24
of India-Singapore DTAA. Now, against the first appellate order assessee has raised various grounds
and also various contentions which we shall discuss hereinafter.
5. To put it succinctly, out of total freight receipts of Rs.1106.89 crores from 136 ships, the Assessing
Officer has given the benefit of Article 8 in respect of 128 ships for total 8 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 freight of Rs.1104.58 crores and held that the same is not taxable in India.
For the balance 8 ships, for total freight of Rs.2.29 crores, AO denied the benefit of Article 8.
Fromthe first appellate stage, the ld. CIT(A) first denies the benefit of Article 8 quathe freight
receipts aggregatingRs.98.67 crores and thereafter, the entire freight of Rs.1106.89 crores has been
held to be assessable in India by invoking Article 24.
6. Since the ld. CIT (A) has denied the entire benefit of Article 8 by invoking the provision of Article
24 of India-Singapore DTAA and has taxed the entire freight receipt in India, therefore, we are

taking up at the first,the issue of Article 24 for adjudication. The relevant observations and findings
on this aspect by the ld. CIT (A) appears from pages 20 to 56 of the impugned order, wherein she
has elaborately dealt and discussed the issue. In sum and substance, her relevant findings and key
observations are summarized in the following manner:-
i) On applicability of Article 24:-
Freight income is earned from export of goods from India, i.e., source of freight income is located in
India. The freight income accrues in or is derived from India and it cannot be said to accrue in or
derived from Singapore.
Under section 10(1) of the Singapore Income Tax Act (SITA), tax is levied on income that accrues in
or is derived from Singapore and also on income, that is, received in Singapore from outside
Singapore. Freight income from India does not accrue in Singapore so it 9 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 can be taxed in Singapore only if it is received in/ remitted to Singapore.
ii) On nexus between remittance of freight collected in India and finally remitted to Singapore:-
No nexus / direct link between freight collected from India and amount finally remitted to
Singapore by group entity.
The freight collected from India is initially merged with freight remittances from other countries in
the central bank account of the assessee maintained in New York.
Thereafter the funds are remitted from the assessee's New York bank account to APL Bermuda's
New York bank. Here again the funds get merged with the other funds of APL Bermuda which are
maintained in its New York bank account. Hence, there is no basis to conclude that any remittance
made by APL Bermuda from its New York bank account to its Singapore bank account is out of
Indian freight.
Due to the semi- territorial system of taxation adopted by Singapore, it has similar limitation of
relief clause in its tax treaties with many countries. The assessee must establish a direct link between
Indian freight and receipt in Singapore.
It may be also possible that funds remitted from APL Bermuda's New York bank account to its
Singapore bank account pertains to freight collected from various countries and not India.
iii) On constructive receipt of Indian freight by assessee, whether in Singapore or in New York:-
Concept of constructive receipt can be used only to decide whether an item of income has been
received or 10 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 not. However, the concept has no relevance in deciding place of receipt.

Even if it is presumed that Indian freight was used to discharge liabilities of the assessee, the said
discharge has taken place in New York and not in Singapore.
iv) On deemed receipt of Indian freight in Singapore as per SITA - Indian freight cannot be deemed
to be received in Singapore:-
As per Article 3(2) of the Tax Treaty, terms not defined in the Tax Treaty have to be interpreted by
referring to the definition contained in the domestic law of the country applying the DTAA (i.e.
India). Therefore, there is no basis for referring to the provisions (i.e. Section 10(25)) contained in
SITA for interpreting a term received / remitted contained in Article 24 of the DTAA.
Even if clause (b) of Section 10(25) of SITA is assumed to be applicable, it requires that income
should be applied towards satisfaction of any debt incurred in respect of a trade or business carried
on in Singapore. In case of the assessee, the assessee carries on business partly in Singapore and
partly outside Singapore and any debt (charter hire charges payable to APL Bermuda for charter of
ships) incurred cannot be presumed to relate only to Singapore business. Ships chartered by the
assessee from APL Bermuda are used not only for Singapore activity but for entire global operations.
Charter hire charges are attributable to the global operations of the assessee.
Hence, discharge of debt does not amount to discharge of debt incurred in respect of a trade or
business carried on in Singapore.
v) On applicability of Article 24 to income covered by Article
11 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
The Assessee's contention that Article 24 applies only
to incomes which are 'exempt from tax' and not to incomes which are 'taxable only in one state', by
making a distinction between the wordings used in Article 24 and Article 8 of the DTAA, is rejected
holding that Art.24 applies only to income which accrues outside Singapore and is not remitted to
Singapore.
Reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in case of Set Satellite
Singapore (Pte) Ltd is distinguishable, albeit the Assessee's case is covered by the decision of the
Mumbai Tribunal in case of Thoresen Chartering Singapore Pte Ltd.
vi) On accrual of (Indian) freight income in Singapore and taxability on accrual basis and not on
remittance basis in Singapore, Ld. CIT(A) held that - Freight income accrues in India.

Argument of the Assessee that the freight income from India has accrued in Singapore because
income accrues where control and management is exercised, is totally contrary to the settled
position of law in India regarding interpretation of the term 'accrual'.
The Assessee is essentially rendering a service of transportation. In the case of provision of services,
the income accrues at the place where the services are rendered.
It cannot be said that transportation of goods which start from Indian ports and passes through the
international waters to the destination port, is performed in Singapore.
vii) On certificate issued by IRASingapore, she held that it does not have any persuasive value as it
does not have independent reasoning:-

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
The letter issued by the IRAS confirming that freight
income of the assessee from its Indian operations has accrued in or derived from a business carried
on in Singapore cannot be relied upon since:
It is not clear under which provision of Singapore law such letter was issued.
It is not a circular issued by the IRAS.
It can be regarded just as an opinion not backed by any statutory authority.
It cannot be treated as conclusive evidence [para 95, page 49] Their opinion is based on the
assumption / reasoning that if a business is partly carried on in Singapore and partly outside
Singapore, the entire income of the business will still accrue only in Singapore because the control
and management of the business is situated there.
This assumption is wrong as the place of accrual of income depends on the nature of the transaction
generating the income and not the place of control and management.
If the reasoning based on control and management is accepted as correct then in all cases of a
Singapore resident company, their global income will accrue in Singapore and hence Article 24 will
not apply to any Singapore company.
viii) On application filed by Appellant for obtaining tax residency certificate and Circular issued by
IRAS - Appellant has stated nature of income as "freight derived from India":-

Singapore has prescribed a standard form for applying for TRC. In this form, the assessee has
specified the 13 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 nature of income for which TRC is sought as 'freight derived from India'.
Singapore has issued a public circular dated 30th May 1998 which was revised on 15th March 2005
and again on 2nd May 2006 on the subject of TRC. At Paras 6-10, the circular explains that TRC will
be issued only when assessee has received the amount in Singapore for which Tax Treaty relief is
asked for.
ix) On tax return filed in Singapore - Freight income claimed as exempt in Singapore, no liability
incurred by (wrongly) including freight income in the Singapore tax return:-
From the Singapore Return, it is seen that the entire income has been claimed as exempt and no tax
is really payable in Singapore based on the Return. Hence the assessee incurs no liability by wrongly
including the freight income from India in the return of Singapore. Similarly, the lRAS cannot tax
the shipping income in any event and their acceptance of a Nil return does not establish that income
has accrued in Singapore.
x) Conclusion on Article 24 - summary:-
The language of Article 24 is categorical and it provides
in clear terms that income for which relief is claimed under the DTAA in India has to be received in
or remitted to Singapore. Thus nexus has to be established which the assessee has not shown in this
ease.
The requirement of nexus between the Indian Freight and the remittance in Singapore is all the
more important because Singapore has similar limitation on relief clause in its DTAA with various
other countries.

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
The onus is on the assessee to produce proper
evidence to show that the income has been received in Singapore. The evidence produced must be
clear and unambiguous, leaving no room for doubt. If the evidence is in the form of a certificate, it
must not be couched in vague and guarded language such that interpretation of the certificate
becomes an issue.
Receipt in Singapore must be by the assessee only because the language of article 24 is precise and
receipt by or behalf of the assessee is not covered by it.

Further even if the principle of constructive receipt is applied it cannot waive the requirement of
receipt of income in Singapore. A payment to a creditor of the assessee can be regarded as receipt by
the assessee, only when before payment, the income is remitted to Singapore. However APL
Bermuda (creditor of the assessee) has been paid off in New York and not in Singapore. Hence
condition of receipt in Singapore is not fulfilled in this case.
The freight income accrues in India in accordance with the Law laid down by Supreme Court in
India. The accrual is in India even in accordance with the source rule contained in Singapore Tax
Laws.
The letter issued by the Singapore tax authorities does not have any persuasive value as it does not
have independent reasoning.
When freight is not remitted to Singapore the assessee is not liable to tax on the said freight in
Singapore A wrong inclusion in the return of income in Singapore of income on which the assessee
is not liable to tax in Singapore does not bar the Indian authorities from concluding that the
assessee was not liable to tax in 15 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 Singapore on that income. More so when such Income is thereafter
exempt in Singapore.
India Singapore DTAA has been held to be a 'subject to tax" DTAA in the case of Thomsen
Chartering (supra) by the ITAT to the extent that DTAA benefits are extended only if the funds are
remitted to Singapore and the assessee is subjected to tax in Singapore. Therefore, when the funds
are not remitted to Singapore the assessee is neither liable to tax in Singapore nor can he be
subjected to tax there.
When a person is not liable to tax and hence cannot be subjected to tax in Singapore the benefit of
DTAA has to he denied as per Article. 24. Mistaken inclusion of such income in a return and
thereafter exempting the same is of no relevance.
The assessee has relied on the decision of the SC in the case of AzadiBachaoAndolan to submit that
DTAA benefit should be extended to it. The said decision is not applicable because it considers
Article 4 of India Mauritius DTAA which provides that a person is a resident of a contracting state if
he is liable to unlimited taxation his global income there. Since Singapore does not tax overseas
income of its residents unless remitted to Singapore, article 4 of India Singapore DTAA is differently
worded, and has to read with article 24. In this case DTAA benefit is not being denied because
assessee is not considered as a resident of Singapore but rather in terms of article 24 of the DTAA. It
was particularly noted by the SC in AzadiBachaoAndolan that there was no Limitation of Benefit
provision in India- Mauritius DTAA.
7. Before us, the ld. Senior Counsel, Mr.Pardiwala after referring to the relevant phrases used in
Article 24 of India- Singapore DTAA submitted that the provisions of Article 24 are 16 APL Co. Pte.
Ltd.

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 not attracted to income which is governed by Article 8 of DTAA. The said
provision will only apply to an income which is either "exempt from tax in India" or "taxed at a
reduced rate" in India as per the DTAA. Article 8(1) which deals with taxability of shipping profits
provides that the profits derived by an enterprise of contracting state (resident state) from the
operation of ships or aircrafts in international traffic shall be taxable only in that state (resident
state). This Article gives exclusive right to tax the shipping profits to the country of residence.Here,
the assessee being a resident of Singapore, hence, India does not have the right to tax the shipping
profits. There is no exemption of income from shipping income as is contemplated under Article 24.
He submitted that there is a difference between income being exempt from tax and income taxable
only in one state. By way of illustration, he pointed out that Articles 20, 21 and 22 of
India-Singapore DTAA specifically provides the incomes which are exempt from tax in a contracting
state. Similarly, the DTAA also provides genres of income which are taxed at reduced rate, e.g.,
Article 11 dealing with interest and Article 12 dealing with Royalty and Fees for Technical Services.
In support of his contention, he strongly relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the
case of SET Satellite Singapore Pte Ltd. vs. ADIT in M.A No. 520/Mum/2010 dated 11.2.2011. He
submitted that the freight earned by assessee is assessable to tax in Singapore under the domestic
laws of Singapore on an accrual basis and not on remittance basis. Irrespective of remittance of
freight income to Singapore, the entire freight income is assessable to tax in the hands of APL in
Singapore on an accrual basis and not on remittance basis. Article 24 applies only when income is
taxable 17 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 in the country of residence on remittance basis. Whether the assessee is
taxable on remittance basis in Singapore can only be decided/determined in accordance with the
provisions of Singapore Income-tax law. He also referred to Sec. 10(1) of Singapore Income-tax Act,
which is the charging section and pointed out that income accruing in or derived from Singapore is
taxable on an accrual basis whereas the foreign sourced income is taxable on remittance basis in
Singapore. In case where the trade or business is carried on in Singapore, i.e. the place of
management is in Singapore then, the income from said trade or business is treated as accruing in
or derived from Singapore. Here, the assessee is carrying on business in Singapore and is also
effectively managed from Singapore,therefore, under the domestic law of Singapore the entire
freight income earned by assessee from its global shipping operations is treated as accrued in
Singapore and is taxable irrespective of its remittance. In support of his contention, he drew our
specific attention to income-tax returns filed by assessee in Singapore for the relevant year to show
that the entire freight income from shipping business has been declared and shown in the
income-tax return. Thereafter, he drew our specific attention to the Certificate/Confirmation given
by Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) which is appearing at page 106 of the Paper Book,
wherein it has been categorically confirmed that Article 24 of DTAA does not apply to freight income
earned by the assessee. The said clarification from IRAS clearly clinches the issue that basis of
taxation of assessees freight income from shipping business is on accrual basis. Thus, the entire
income from shipping has been shown on actual basis in Singapore and it will not make 18 APL Co.
Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 any difference whatsoever even if under the Singapore Income- tax Act,
shipping income is ultimately not taxable.

8. In support of the aforesaid contentions, Shri Pardiwala strongly relied on the decision of ITAT,
Rajkot Bench in the case of Alabra Shipping Pte Ltd., 62 taxmann.com 185, wherein the Tribunal
has held that Article 24 has no applicability in the case of shipping companies operating from
Singapore because the second condition prescribed in Article 24, i.e., taxability of income in
Singapore on receipt basis is not satisfied.The Tribunal held that there was nothing on record to
suggest that the freight income of assessee was taxable on receipt basis in Singapore. There also, the
Tribunal has relied upon the Confirmation/Certificate given by IRAS. He pointed out that, now
there is a decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M.T. Maersk Mikage vs. DIT (IT),
(2016) 72 taxmann.com 359, wherein the Honble High Court in the context of India-Singapore
DTAA has held that shipping companys income is not taxable in Singapore on the basis of
remittance, albeit on accrual basis and, therefore, para 1 of Article 24 would not be applicable. While
holding so, the Honble Court has heavily relied on the letter/confirmation issued by IRAS which
confirmed the taxability of global shipping income in Singapore on accrual basis. To prove his point,
he drew our specific attention to the various observations made in the said judgment by their
Lordships. As regards the observation of the ld. CIT(A) that confirmation given by IRAS will not
have significance, he submitted that firstly, whether the assessees income is taxable in Singapore on
accrual basis or remittance basis is a question of law, which is to be determined having 19 APL Co.
Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 regard to the law in force in Singapore and not in India; and secondly,
once the Singapore tax authorities have confirmed the position of taxability of assessees income,
then said position is binding on other contracting state which has been held so in the decision of the
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as aforesaid and also well-settled by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of UOI vs. AzadiBachaoAndolan, 263 ITR 706(SC) and Hon'ble Madras High Court
in the case of CIT vs. Lakshmi Textile Exporters Ltd., 245 ITR 521 (Mad), that certificate issued by
Tax Authorities of the foreign state is binding.
9. Without prejudice to the aforesaid arguments that the conditions specified in Article 24 are not
fulfilled, Mr.Pardiwalla submitted that, since the freight collected from Indian operations are
ultimately remitted to Singapore, the condition of remittance of freight collected to Singapore as
provided in Article 24 stands satisfied. He explained that the freight income arising from assessees
shipping operations is first collected in bank account centrally maintained in New York (Citibank
account), which is done purely for commercial and administrative reasons due to time difference
between New York and Singapore and once the funds are deposited, various debts and liabilities are
discharged and the balance amount is remitted to Singapore bank account. Thus, the condition of
remittance to Singapore stands settled.
10. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR, Ms. Vandana Sagar after referring to the various
observations and findings given by the ld. CIT(A) (as incorporated above), submitted that this issue
is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in 20 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 the case of DIT(IT) vs. Thoresen Chartering Singapore (Pte.) Ltd., 315
ITR(AT) 376 (Mumbai). In this case, the Tribunal while dealing with the issue of Article 8 and 24 of
India- Singapore DTAA held that the shipping income remitted or received in Singapore will not be

entitled for benefit of Article 8 of DTAA after analysing the provisions of Article 24. She further
submitted that once the assessee has chosen to take the benefit of the DTAA, then it cannot go back
to rely upon the Singapore tax laws. Here, the issue is not of tax neutrality because assessee is not
paying any tax on shipping income in Singapore. Therefore, it cannot be held that there is any kind
of remittance of receipts or income in Singapore so as to attract tax in Singapore. Once the income
itself is exempt from tax, it inter- alia means that there is no remittance and consequently by virtue
of Article 24, the entire income is to be taxed in the source state, i.e. in India. The freight income
from India does not accrue in Singapore so that it can be taxed in Singapore only because the
Singapore law envisages taxability of foreign sourced income only on the basis of remittance. She
also filed a copy of downloaded version of literature of taxable and non- taxable income from
IRASingapore website to show that u/s 10(25) of SITA, income from out of Singapore is considered
received in Singapore only when it is remitted or transmitted or brought into Singapore. Here, in
this case, the ld. CIT(A) has amply demonstrated that firstly,there is no remittance to Singapore and
secondly, income itself is not taxable in Singapore. The foreign sourced income has been defined in
Singapore Income Tax Act as foreign income that does not arise from a trade or business carried on
in Singapore and foreign income is taxable only when it is actually received in Singapore 21 APL Co.
Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 and once this condition is fulfilled, then in terms of Article 24 the source
state, i.e., India has a right to tax the shipping income. In support of her point she also filed certain
decisions of the Court of appeals of Singapore specifically in the case of Comptroller of Income Tax
vs. HY [2006] 2 SLR 405; SG [2006] SGCA 7 to show as to how the courts have interpreted the
words "derived from or accruing in Singapore". Thus, after referring to the various documents and
literature she summarised her arguments that Singapore follows a quasi-territorial basis of taxation
whereby only income earned in or derived from Singapore is taxed in Singapore.The income earned
from sources outside Singapore is not subject to Singapore tax till such time that the income is
received/remitted in Singapore. Thus, the observations and conclusion of CIT(A) are in accordance
with the correct interpretation of Article 24 and also the Singapore tax laws.
11. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant findings given in the impugned order
as well as the material referred to before us. Before we dwell upon the issue as to whether the
limitation clause as appearing in Article 24 of India-Singapore DTAA is applicable to the facts of
present case or not, it would be relevant to peruse the relevant Article itself, which for the sake of
ready reference is reproduced hereunder :-
"Article 24: Limitation of relief -
1. Where this Agreement provides (with or without other conditions) that income
from sources in a Contracting State shall be exempt from tax, or taxed at a reduced
rate in that Contracting State and under the laws in force in the other Contracting
State the said income is subject to tax by 22 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 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 approved by the competent authority of that State for
the purpose of this paragraph. The term "Government" includes its agencies and
statutory bodies."
The aforesaid Article provides a limitation on relief provision related to remittance basis of taxation
which is applied in few countries like Singapore and United Kingdom. Under the remittance basis of
taxation, income arising outside the country is taxable not when the income is earned or arises or is
derived, but only when that income is remitted to and received in the resident country. In
Singapore, the resident companies are generally taxed on income accruing in or derived from
Singapore on accrual basis, however, income accruing or derived from outside Singapore is taxed on
remittance basis. This is the consequence of Sec. 10(1) of Singapore Income Tax Act, which reads as
under:-
"Charge of income tax:
10 - (1) Income tax shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be payable at the rate or
rates specified hereinafter for each year of assessment upon the income of any person
accruing in or derived from Singapore or received in Singapore from outside
Singapore in respect of-

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
(a) gains or profits from any trade, business, profession or vocation, for whatever
period of time such trade, business, profession or vocation may have been carried on
or exercised" (Emphasis added is ours) If we analyse the relevant phrases used in
Article 24, it is quite apparent that two conditions have been envisaged that needs to
be fulfilled; firstly, income earned from the source state (here in this case, India) is
exempt from tax or is taxed at a reduced rate in the source state (India) as per the
DTAA; and secondly, under the laws in force of the resident state (Singapore), such
income is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or
received in the resident state and not by reference to the full amount thereof. If both
the conditions are satisfied, then only the exemption is allowed or the reduced rate of
tax is levied on the amount so remitted. The key phrases which need to be borne in
mind while understanding Article 24 is "under the laws in force in other contracting
state" (Singapore). Here, in this case, the income of assessee-company from shipping
operations is not taxable on remittance basis under the laws of Singapore, albeit is
liable to be taxed in-principle on accrual basis by virtue of the fact that this income

under the income tax laws of Singapore is regarded as "accruing in or derived from
Singapore".
The shipping income from overseas is not treated as foreign income because it is accrued in and
derived from Singapore. From the plain reading of Sec. 10(1) of Singapore Income Tax Act it can be
inferred that firstly, the tax is on income accruing in or derived from Singapore and it is completely
irrelevant whether the income is received in Singapore or not and; secondly, where the income is
accrued or is derived from outside Singapore, the liability to tax arises on such foreign income only
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 if the foreign income is received in Singapore. It has already been brought
on record and also it is an undisputed fact that the Singapore Income Tax Act requires that the
shipping enterprises should file their statement of each year of assessment for the amount of income
derived from its operations of Singapore or foreign ships in Singapore. The entire income is to be
disclosed in the return of income and the statement is issued when the Comptroller of Income-tax is
satisfied that a company has correctly reported its income accrued in or derived from Singapore
from its business carried on in Singapore. We have already perused the copy of the return of income
along with the computation filed with the IRAS for the year ending on 31.12.2008, relevant for
Assessment Year 2008- 09, copy of which is appearing from pages 23 to 30 of the paper book. In the
said return, the column mentioning the foreign income received in Singapore has been reported to
be NIL, whereas income accruing in or derived from Singapore has been shown at SGD 2,207,928. A
confirmation/Certificate has also been obtained from IRAS, the content of which is reproduced
hereunder:-
"Dear Sir/Madam APL Co. Pte Ltd. ("the company") FREIGHT INCOME YEARS OF
ASSESSMENT ("YAs") 2008 & 2009
1. We refer to our discussions on the subject.
2. You have stated that the company is primarily engaged in shipping and related
businesses and it receives freight payments for its services. During calendar years
2007 and 2008, the company derived freight income 25 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 from third parties including freight income from Indian operations, that
is, income from the carriage of goods/cargo to and from Indian ports. The company has reported the
freight income in its Singapore tax returns for the YAs 2008 and 2009.
3. You wish to seek our clarification to the effect that Article 24(1) of the India-Singapore double
taxation agreement (DTA) is not applicable to the freight income derived from Indian operations.
4. The freight income derived by the company from Indian operations was accrued in or derived
from a business carried on in Singapore. As such, it was regarded as Singapore sourced income and
assessed to tax in Singapore on accrual basis (i.e. not remittance basis) in the YAs 2008 and 2009.

5. In this regard, the physical flow of funds is not relevant and Article 24(1), which seeks to limit
relief under the DTA where the relevant income is subject to tax in Singapore on a remittance basis,
would not be applicable to the freight income from Indian operations.
6. We hope that this is sufficient to address your query. If you require any further clarifications,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours faithfully LAU KIAT PENG (MS) SENIOR TAX OFFICER CORPORATE TAX DIVISION for
COMPTROLLER OF INCOME TAX"
[Emphasis added is ours] 26 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 From the aforesaid Certificate/Confirmation given by IRAS, it is

ostensibly clear that the freight income derived by the assessee- company from the Indian
operations was accrued in or derived from business carried on in Singapore. As such, it is regarded
as Singapore sourced income and assessed to tax in Singapore on accrual basis and not on
remittance basis. In light of this Certificate, there cannot remain any iota of doubt that the freight
income derived by assessee-company from Indian operations in terms of Singapore Income Tax Act
is to be reckoned as accrued in or derived from business carried in Singapore and not some kind of
foreign income which is to be taxed on remittance basis. The authenticity of the aforesaid Certificate
had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of India-Singapore
DTAA and that too, in the case of a shipping company, M.T. Maersk Mikage vs. DIT (IT) (supra).The
relevant observations of Honble Court are reproduced hereunder:-
"15. This brings us to the core issue strenuously debated by both sides viz. that of
applicability of Article 8 vis-a-vis Article 24 of DTAA. We may quickly refresh the
facts. ST Shipping is a company based in Singapore. Through the shipping business
carried out at Indian ports, ST Shipping earned income, on which, it claims immunity
from Indian income tax. The Revenue contends that the remittance of such accrued
income not having taken place at Singapore, Article 24 will apply and consequently
Article 8 providing for avoidance of table taxation would not apply.
16. The fact, that the income in question which arises out of shipping operations by
virtue of Clause-1 of Article 8 of the DTAA would be taxable only in Singapore, is not
in serious dispute. The moot question therefore is whether operation of Article 8 is
ousted by virtue of Clause-1 of 27 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 Article 24. As noted, Article-24 of DTAA pertains to limitation of relief.
Under clause-1 thereof where the agreement provides that the income from sources in contracting
states (in the present case, India) shall be exempt from tax or tax at a reduced rate and under the
laws in force in other contracting states (i.e. Singapore), such income is subject to tax by reference to
the amount thereof which is remitted or received in that State and not by reference to the full
amount thereof then the exemption or reduction of tax under the agreement would be limited to so
much of the income as is remitted to or received in that contracting State. In plain terms therefore, if

the income in question was taxable in Singapore on the basis of receipt or remission and not by
reference to the full amount of income accruing, clause-1 of Article 24 would apply and dependent
on the facts of the case, exemption as per Article 8 either in whole or in part would be excluded.
17. It is, in this context, that the certificate dated 09.01.2013 issued by the Inland Revenue Authority
of Singapore assumes significance. In the said certificate, as noted, it was certified that the income
in question derived by ST Shipping would be considered as income accruing in or derived from the
business carried on in Singapore and such income therefore, would be assessable in Singapore on
accrual basis. It was elaborated that the full amount of income would be assessable to tax in
Singapore not by reference to the amount remitted to or received in Singapore. In fact, the certifying
authority went on to opine that in view of such facts, Article 24.1 of the DTAA would not be
applicable and consequently, Article 8 would apply.
18. To this later opinion of the Revenue authority of Singapore, we may not be fully guided since it
falls within the realm of interpretation of the relevant clauses of DTAA. However, in absence of any
rebuttal material produced by the Revenue, we would certainly be guided by the factual declaration
made by the said authority in the said 28 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 certificate and this declaration is that the income would be charged at
Singapore considering it as an income accruing or derived from business carried on in Singapore. In
other words, the full income would be assessable to tax on the basis of accrual and not on the basis
of remittance. This certificate was before the Commissioner while he passed the impugned order.
The contents of this certificate were not doubted. If that be so, what emerges from the record is that
the income in question would be assessable to tax at Singapore on the basis of accrual and not
remittance. This would knock out the very basis of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner for
invoking clause-1 of Article 24 of DTAA. Both the authorities considered the question of remittance
of income as the sole requirement for invoking Article 24.1 of DTAA an interpretation which
according to us does not flow from the language used. As noted the essence of Article 24.1 is that in
case certain income is taxed by a contracting State not on the basis of accrual, but on the basis of
remittance, applicability of Article 8 would be ousted to the extent such income is not remitted. This
clause does not provide that in every case of non- remittance of income to the contracting state,
Article 8 would not apply irrespective of tax treatment such income is given. When in the present
case, we hold that the income in question was not taxable at Singapore on the basis of remittance
but on the basis of accrual, the very basis for applying clause-1 of Article 24 would not survive. The
contention of Shri Mehta for revenue that the certificate of the Singapore revenue authorities is
opposed to provisions of section 10 of the Singapore Income Tax Act also cannot be accepted. The
Revenue does not question genuineness of the certificate. It cannot dispute the contention on the
ground that the same are opposed to the statutoryprovision.
19. By way of a reference, we may notice that the Tribunal also in case of this very assessee in case of
Alabra Shipping Pte Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer - International Taxation, Gandhidham, reported in
62 29 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 Taxmann.com 185 has taken a somewhat similar view by observing as
under:
"6. As a plain reading of Article 24(1) would show, this LOB clauses comes into play
when (i) income sourced in a contracting state is exempt from tax in that source state
or is subject to tax at a reduced rate in that source state, (ii) the said income (i.e.
income sourced in the contracting state) is subject to tax by reference to the amount
remitted to, or received in, the other contracting state, rather than with reference to
full amount of such income; and (iii) in such a situation, the treaty protection will be
restricted to the amount which is taxed in that other contracting state. In simple
words, the benefit of treaty protection is restricted to the amount of income which is
eventually subject matter of taxation in the source country. This is all the more
relevant for the reason that in a situation in which territorial method of taxation is
followed by a tax jurisdiction and the taxability for income from activities carried out
outside the home jurisdiction is restricted to the income repatriated to such tax
jurisdiction, as in the case of Singapore, the treaty protection must remain confined
to the amount which is actually subjected to tax. Any other approach could result in a
situation in which an income, which is not subject matter of taxation in the residence
jurisdiction, will anyway be available for treaty protection in the source country. It is
in this background that the scope of LOB provision in Article 24 needs to be
appreciated."
20. Under the circumstances,in our opinion, Assessing Officer and the Commissioner committed
serious error in passing the impugned orders. Before closing, we may briefly touch on one more
aspect sought to be raised by the Revenue viz. of the actual tax being paid by the assessee on such
income at Singapore. On the ground that such income is exempt from payment of tax, the Revenue
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 desired to impose tax in India. In this context, the petitioner has relied on
the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Emirates Shipping Line, FZE (supra), in which it was
held that the assessee, a UAE based shipping company, whose income from such business was
exempt from tax in such country, would still not be liable to pay tax in India by virtue of Article 8 of
the DTAA between the said two countries. It was held that a person does not have to actually pay
taxes in other country to be entitled to benefit of DTAA. We may notice that a somewhat similar
issue came up before this Court in case of Director of Income- Tax (International Taxation) v.
Venkatesh Karrier Ltd. reported in 349 ITR 124,-inwhich the Court observed as under:
"10. After taking into consideration the above circulars issued by the Board and also
the provisions contained in Article 8 of the DTAA, we find that both the Tribunal
below and the CIT [Appeals] rightly held that in such a situation, the owner of the
ship being admittedly a resident of UAE, there was no scope of taxing the income of
the ship in any of the ports in India. The agreement between the two countries has
ousted the jurisdiction of the taxing officers in India to tax the profits derived by the
enterprise once it is found that the ship belongs to a resident of the other contracting

country and such position has also been clarified by the Circulars issued by the Board
as indicated above."
22. In the present case, however, we are not inclined to conclude this issue since this was not even a
ground on which either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner has refused to grant the benefit
to the petitioner. It is a ground sought to be raised for the first time before us by the Revenue, for
which, neither full factual evidence, nor legal foundation is laid. We leave such an issue open to be
decided in the appropriate case."

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court clearly clinches the issue in favour of the
assessee, wherein the Honble High Court has categorically held that the shipping income is not
taxable in Singapore on the basis of remittance, but on accrual basis and, therefore, para 1 of Article
24 would not be applicable. Here, in this case also, the Honble Court has heavily relied upon the
confirmation letter/Certificate issued by IRAS which confirmed the taxability of global shipping
income in Singapore on accrual basis. Their Lordships have also referred to the Rajkot Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Alabra Shipping Pte Ltd., (supra), which also lays down the same
proposition. Thus, the conclusion and finding of ld. CIT (A) stands negated by these decisions and
same is rejected. Further in light of the Honble High Court judgment, the reliance on the decision in
DIT (IT) vs. Thoresen Chartering Singapore (Pte.) Ltd. (supra) as heavily relied upon by ld. CIT (A)
and Ld CIT DR, no longer holds good.
12. There is another angle to interpret Article 24, which is that, the said Article purports to exclude
tax exemption in India if the income is not remitted or received in Singapore for taxation purpose on
the premise that this is a foreign income to Singapore. First of all, it has to be seen whether shipping
income is exempt from tax in India and; secondly, whether the shipping income is foreign income to
Singapore which would then be taxable upon receipt or remittance to Singapore. The shipping
income is dealt with under Article 8, which states that "profits derived by an enterprise of a
contracting state from the operation of ships ....................................... in international traffic shall be
taxable only in that state, i.e., resident state." The word 32 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 "only" debars the other contracting state to tax the shipping income, that
is, India is precluded from taxing the shipping income even if it is sourced from India. An enterprise
which is tax-resident of Singapore is liable for taxation on its shipping income only in Singapore and
not in India. Whence India does not have any taxation right on a shipping income of non- resident
entity, which is exclusive domain of the resident state, there is no question of any kind of exemption
or reduced rate of taxation in the source state. It only envisages territorial and jurisdictional rights
for taxing the income and India has no jurisdiction for any taxing right which are governed by
Article 8. There is no stipulation about exemption under Article 8 of the shipping income which as
pointed out by ld. Senior Counsel has been specifically provided in some of the Articles like Article
20, 21 & 22. Hence, it cannot be reckoned that shipping income earned from India is to be treated as

exempt from tax or taxed at reduced rate, which is a condition precedent for applicability of Article
24, albeit India at the threshold does not have the jurisdiction to tax the shipping income of the
non-resident entity. Thus, the condition of Article 24 is not satisfied in the present case from this
angle also. In conclusion, we hold that the ld. CIT (A) was not justified in denying the benefit of
Article 8 by invoking the limitation clause of Article 24 of India- Singapore DTAA as per our
discussion above and most important, now this issue stands squarely covered by the decision of
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as referred above. In the light of our aforesaid finding, we do not deem
fit to enter into the semantics of other findings of Ld. CIT (A) like nexus between remittance of
freight collected in India and finally to Singapore various and other aspects raised by her and also
the various 33 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 arguments as raised by ld. Sr. Counsel and ld. CIT-DR qua the issue of
Article 24.
13. Now, the next issue for our consideration is eligibility of Article 8 in respect of income earned
from shipping operations by the assessee from India. As stated in our earlier part of the order,
during the relevant previous year assessee had shown freight receipts from shipping in respect of
136 ships and claimed the freight income of these ships as not taxable in India in terms of Article 8
of India-Singapore DTAA. The Assessing Officer held that out of 136 ships, assessee could not
produce the Certificates in respect of 8 ships on which he denied the benefit of Article 8 and
accordingly, out of the total freight receipt of Rs.1104.58 crores, the benefit of Article 8 was denied
on the freight amount of Rs.2.29 crores only. The CIT (A) noted that out of 136 ships, 81 ships were
under connecting carrier agreement (charter party agreement) and in respect of 16 ships, only
Validation Certificates were filed. Thus, 97 ships were not owned, leased or operated by the assessee,
which is the condition precedent for availing benefit under Article 8. After reproducing Article 8, she
held that the profits derived from transportation by sea should be on the ships owned or leased or
chartered by the assessee. The assessee, for earning the income from operation of ships, so as to be
eligible under Article 8(4) should be the owner, lessee or charterer and if anything is operated as slot
charterer or connecting carrier agreement, same will not fall within the ambit of Article 8 as defined
in India-Singapore DTAA. In support of her contention, she strongly relied on the following four
decisions:-

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
i) DDIT vs. Cia de NavegacaoNorsul Brazil, [2009] 121 ITD 113 (Mum);
ii) ACIT vs. Federal Express Corporation, [2010] 125 ITD 1 (Mum);
iii) Jt. DIT vs. ANL Container Line Pte. Ltd.; and
iv) Delta Airlines vs. ADIT, [2010] 124 ITD 114.

After referring to these decisions, she observed that the following principles emerge while
interpreting the provisions of Article 8 in India-Singapore DTAA:-
"(i) If the term operation of ship is not defined at all in the DTAA, a broad
interpretation of the Article can be made in those cases. The India-UK DTAA is an
example of such a case.
(ii) Where the term operation of ship is defined as transportation of goods in vessels
owned, leased or chartered by the enterprise, the benefit of article 8 can be extended
only if the transportation is done by the enterprise by operation of ships that are
owned, leased or chartered by it.
(iii) Where the term operation of ship also covers "any other activity directly
connected with such transportation", the freight booked through feeder vessels will
be eligible for DTAA benefit only when the goods transported through feeder vessels
are further trans-shipped through mother vessels operated by the assessee. The
assessee has to link the goods in the feeder vessels with mother vessels operated by it,
to claim benefit."
She further observed that 81 vessels were under the connecting carrier arrangement which are
generally termed as feeder vessels where only space is given to the assessee on adhoc basis 35 APL
Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 by the feeder operator and such transportation of goods through feeder
vessel do not fulfil the requirements of Article 8 because these feeder vessels are not owned, leased
or operated by the assessee. Regarding the other 16 ships, she observed that though these ships were
claimed to be under Joint Service agreement, however, the assessee had produced Ship Validation
Certificate, which are only of feeder operators. It does not refer to any Joint Service agreement.
Hence, solely based on such Ship Validation Certificate, DTAA benefit cannot be extended to the
assessee. She further noted that the assessee had explained that in all 211 mother vessels were used
to transport the goods from 97 feeder vessels. However, the assessee was able to show that only 60
vessels out of the 211 mother vessels used it to further transport the goods were operated by it. In
respect of this freight the assessee is eligible for DTAA benefit in terms of clause (d) of para 4 of
Article 8 of the DTAA. Based on her observation, she denied the benefit of Article 8 of on the freight
receipts of Rs.97,29,89,746/- in the following manner :-
Sr. Name of Agreement/ No of Collections Collections Freight +

No. Vessel name ship (Mother Vessel (Mother Vessel Detention
s Documents Documents not
submitted) submitted)
I Non-Exclusive 81 136,51,47,435 63,93,43,868 200,44,91,303
Connecting Carrier
Agreement (Includes 4
ships for which
addition made by AO)

II Ship Validation 16 30,84,44,733 33,36,45,878 64,20,90,611

Certificate
TOTAL 97 167,35,92,168 97,29,89,746 2,64,65,81,914
III No Documents 04 1,36,89,191 1,36,89,191
(Addition made by AO)
TOTAL 101 167,35,92,168 98,66,78,937 2,66,02,71,105
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
14. She also distinguished the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balaji Shipping
UK Ltd. vs. DIT, [2012] 253 CTR Bom 460 on the ground that Article 8 of India- Singapore DTAA
and Article 9 of India-U.K DTAA are quite different because Singapore treaty contains specific
definition of the term operation of ships, whereas, in India-UK Treaty there is no specific definition
and hence it has been interpreted in wider terms.
15. We have heard the rival submissions made by both the parties and also perused the relevant
findings given in the impugned orders as well as the material referred before us. The main plank of
argument of ld. Senior Counsel, Shri Pardiwala has been that, the ld. CIT (A) has proceeded on the
premise that slot charter arrangement, i.e. transportation done through feeder vessel to mother
vessel and solely from feeder vessel will not be entitled for benefit under Article 8, because the entire
leg of journey has not been done by the ship owned, leased or chartered by the assessee. Such a
premise of Ld. CIT(A) now stands answered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of Tribunal in
the case of MISC Berhad vs. ADIT in ITA No. 6499/Mum/2012 dated 16.7.2014 and also by the
decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balaji
Shipping UK Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held that even shipping
operations done through slot charter arrangement is to be treated as income from shipping
operations. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR had mainly relied upon the relevant observation and
finding of CIT(A) and she also referred to that portion of the decision of MISC Berhad (supra),
wherein the Tribunal has held 37 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 that a linkage has to be established between the transportation of feeder
vessel and the mother vessel which is owned or leased by the assessee. Once that linkage is not
established, benefit of Article 8 cannot be given. She further relied upon another decision of
Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Delta Air Lines Inc. vs. ADIT(IT) reported in [2015] 69
SOT 45 (Mumbai- Trib.).
16. From the facts and observations made by ld. CIT(A) as discussed above, it is seen that the main
ground for denying the benefit of Article 8 in respect of certain ships by her is that firstly, the entire
leg of journey has not been done through a vessel which is owned, leased or chartered by the
assessee, i.e., it has been done through feeder vessels and; secondly, in respect of certain ships there
was only Joint Service agreement with the feeder vessel, i.e., there was no use of any mother vessel
owned by the assessee. She has mainly relied upon the definition of Article 8 as given in
India-Singapore DTAA to come to the conclusion that operation of the ships in international traffic
should be carried on by the owners or lessees or charterers of the ships. In the case of journey, part

or full journey by feeder vessels under slot charter arrangement does not fall within the scope of
good carried by the owners, lessee or charterer of ships, therefore, benefit of Article 8 cannot be
given and for this proposition she had relied upon certain coordinate bench decisions. Again this
aspect of the issue she has inferred from para 4 of Article 8. For the sake of ready reference the
relevant provision of Article 8 under India-Singapore DTAA reads as under:-

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
"Article 8: Shipping and air transport
1. Profits derived by an enterprise of a Contracting State from the operation of ships or aircraft in
international traffic shall be taxable only in that State.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall also apply to profits from the participation in a pool, a joint
business or an international operating agency engaged in the operation of ships or aircraft.
3. Interest on funds connected with the operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic shall be
regarded as profits derived from the operation of such ships or aircraft, and the provisions of Article
11 shall not apply in relation to such interest.
4. For the purposes of this Article, profits from the operation of ships or aircraft in international
traffic shall mean profits derived from the transportation by sea or air of passengers, mail, livestock
or goods carried on by the owners or lessees or charterers of the ships or aircraft, including profits
from:
(a) the sale of tickets for such transportation on behalf of other enterprises;
(b) the incidental lease of ships or aircraft used in such transportation;
(c) the use, maintenance or rental of containers (including trailers and related
equipment for the transport of containers) in connection with such transportation;
and
(d) any other activity directly connected with such transportation."
The key phrases on which heavy reliance has been placed are "operation of ships, transportation by
sea or air carried on 39 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 by the owners or lessees or charterers of the ships". This precise matter of
the issue had come up for consideration before this Bench in the case of MISC Berhad (supra),
wherein on interpretation of Article 8 of Malaysia India-DTAA, which contains a similar

phraseology, it was observed and opined as under :-
"23. We will now independently examine Article-8(1) and Article-8(2) of

Indo-Malaysia DTAA. The crucial phrase or words which need to be analysed here
are "operation of ships", transportation by the "owner" or "lessees" or "charterers" of
ships. First of all, the word "operation" is different from the word "operate" or
"operator". The word "operate" means to control the functioning of machine, process
or system. Here, the person in control is important. The word "operator" means, a
person who operates the equipment or a machine. Here for our purpose operator of
ship. Whereas, the word "operation" connotes the fact or condition of functioning or
being active i.e., some kind of activity. The operation of ships cannot be understood
merely as an operator of ships or a person who operates the ships. The word
"operation of ships" has to be understood in a broader sense of carrying out shipping
activity. The carrying of shipping activity could be as an owner of a ship or as a lessee
of a ship or as a charterer of a ship. Here, the word "owner" has to be inferred as a
person who owns a ship and the word "lessee" as a person who owns the ship for a
given lease period. The word "charterer" has to be understood as a person who
charters or hires a ship for a voyage. The Law Lexicon (P. Ramanatha Ayier,
2ndEdn.), defines the word "charterer" as "one who, by contract acquired the right to
use a vessel belonging to another. One who charters or hires or engages the whole or
part of a ship under an agreement of Charter Party for a voyage". Here, the word
"charterer" does not mean the owner or lessee of a ship. The word "charter Party" has
been defined in Law Lexicon as "an indenture 40 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 of covenants and agreements made between merchants and mariners
concerning their sea affairs. It is a contract by which a ship or some principal part thereof, is let to a
merchant for conveyance of goods on a determined voyage to one or more places". From this
definition, it is amply evident that the word "charterer" means hiring of a ship for a voyage, either
whole of the ship or a part of a ship. The word "charter" completely eludes the concept of ownership.
A charterer of a ship cannot be the owner of a ship. Therefore, the contention of the learned
Departmental Representative that the word "charterer" has to be understood in the context of owner
or lessee that is having control of the ship is perhaps not the correct understanding of the word
"charterer". The principle of noscitur-a-sociis i.e., the meaning of doubtful word may be ascertained
by reference to the meaning of the words associated with it will also not apply here. In other words,
the meaning of the word "charterer" cannot be imported from or to be understood from the meaning
of the word "owner" or "lessee". The learned counsel, before us, has also filed various meaning of the
term "charter" or "charterer", which are as under:-
i) Dictionary of International Business terms (Financial World Publishing), defines the term
"Charter" as under:-
"To rent an aircraft or vessel, or a part of its cargo space, for a particular journey or a period of
time."

ii) Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines the term "charter" which includes the term "space
charter" which is defined as under:-
"A charter for a part of a vessel's capacity, such as a specified hold or deck or a specified part of the
vessel's carrying capacity."
iii) K.J. Aiyars Judicial Dictionary (12th Edition) defines the term "charter party" as under:-

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
"An agreement in writing by which a ship -
owner agrees to let an entire ship or part thereof, to a merchant, for the carriage of goods on a
specified voyage, or during a specified period, for a sum of money which the merchant agrees to pay
as freight for their carriage."
iv) Concise Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (Year 2005), defines the term "charterer" as
under:-
"One who charters or hires or engages the whole or part of a ship under an agreement
of charter party for a voyage."
v) Chambers 20th Century dictionary defines the term "charterer" as under:-
"to establish by charter: to let or hire, as a ship, on contract.
vi) Modern legal usage dictionary defines the term "charterer" as under:-
"a person to whom a vessel is chartered in a charter party."
vii) Oxford dictionary defines the term "charterer" as under:-
"A contract to hire an aircraft, ship, etc. for a special purpose."
viii) Maritime and Shipping Dictionary 2012, defines the term "charter" as under:
"A voyage charter whereby the ship owner agrees to place a certain number of
container slots ("TEU and/or FEU) at the charterer's disposal."
24. From the above definitions of the term "charter" or "charterer", one thing is amply clear that it
means hiring of 42 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 vessels or a ship or a part of its space under an agreement for a voyage.
Thus, even a part of a space in the vessels for a particular journey is also considered as "charter of
ship" or "charterer". In the decision of Balaji Shipping U.K. Ltd. (supra), while referring to the
judgment of Tychy (supra), the High Court have noted that a "slot charter" and a "voyage charter" of
a part of a ship are in a sense charterers of a space in a ship.
25. From the above discussion, the following inferences can be deduced:-
i) Firstly, the operation of a ship can be done as charterer which does not mean to
own or control the ship either as an owner or as a lessee;
ii) Secondly, charterer is a hirer of a ship under an agreement or arrangement to

acquire the right to use a vessel or a ship for the transportation of a good on a
determined voyage, either the whole of the ship or part of the ship or some space of
the ship in a charter party agreement; and
iii) Thirdly, the word "charterer" includes a voyage charter of a part of a ship or a slot,
as it is also arrangement or agreement to hire a space in a ship owned and leased by
other persons.
Thus, in our opinion, the word "charterer" should not be confused from the word "owner" or "lessee"
or having control of the ship or as an operator of the ship. The operation of ship can be done as a
charterer, which includes part of a ship or particular space in a ship."
From the above analysis of these phrases, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the
definition of "operation of ships" also alludes to the concept of charterer of ships, which even
includes part of ship in an arrangement such as slot charter, space charter or joint charter. The slot
charter and space 43 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 charter of a ship cannot be segregated or read in isolation from the
meaning of charterer as appearing in para 4 of Article 8. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in
the case of Balaji Shipping U.K Ltd. (supra) has clearly explained the concept of slot charter. The
relevant observations of the Hon'ble Court reads as under:-
"24. Slot hire agreements have been and remain a regular feature of the shipping
industry for decades. Whether they constitute a charter of a portion of a ship or not is
a different matter. In a case of the first type, the carriage of goods by availing of the
slot hire facility is an integral part of the contract of carriage of goods by sea. Without
it, the enterprise / assessee would be greatly hampered in its business in relation to
international traffic, carriage of goods by sea. Enterprises operating in any mode or
manner, do not always ply their ships all over the globe. Even if they do, their ships
may not be readily available when required on a particular route in connection with a
contract of carriage of goods. It is necessary, therefore in such cases for them to
resort to slot hire agreements. This enables them to transport the goods not on behalf

of the owner of the vessel which has granted them a slot hire facility, but in their own
name on behalf of their clients. The contract of carriage of goods by sea is thus
performed by such enterprises on a principal to principal basis with their clients and
not as agents of the owners of the ships and/or their clients. The slot hire agreements
are therefore, at least indirectly, if not directly, connected and interlinked with and
are an integral part of the enterprise's business of operating ships.
25. Without availing slot hire facilities, an enterprise would be unable to carry on its
business of operating ships in international traffic at all in many cases. They may well
loose much of their business. Even if business expediency is irrelevant to the
interpretation of the DTAA, it indicates the close nexus between slot hires and the
business of 44 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 operation of ships in international traffic. If the DTAA is construed to
include activities directly or indirectly connected to the operation of ships, it would include slot
charters.
26. The second type of case poses some difficulty. We are, however, of the view that even such cases
fall under Article 9(1). Article 9 would apply in respect of an enterprise that carries on the business
of operation of ships in international traffic but for a valid reason is required to transport the cargo
availing entirely a slot hire facility obtained by it on a ship of another. The illustrations we furnished
in respect of the first type of case will also apply to these cases.
An enterprise may not ply the ships owned or chartered or otherwise controlled or managed by it in
respect of certain routes. It would however, on account of the business exigencies, be required to
carry cargo on such routes. Business expediency could arise on account of a number of reasons and
different situations such as obliging regular clients, or cultivating new ones. If it were not to do so, it
may well loose clientele. Ships owned or chartered or otherwise controlled or managed by an
enterprise may not be available on the particular route on a given day or for a particular period. The
enterprise may already have entered into contracts or may even be required to enter into contracts
for the carriage of goods on that route on that day or during that period. The trade would expect the
enterprise to perform its contracts and/or ensure there is no break in its services. This it can do by
availing slot hire agreements. Their refusal or failure to do so, may well affect their business and
reputation adversely.
27. By availing the facility of slot hire agreements, the enterprise does not arrange the shipment on
behalf of the owner of the said vessel, but does so on its own account on a principal to principal basis
with its clients. Such cases also have a nexus to the main business of the enterprise of the operation
of ships. They are ancillary to and 45 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 complement the operation of ships by the enterprise. If they are not
merely ancillary to the main business of operation of ships but constitute the primary and main
activities of the enterprise, it may be a different matter, which we are not called upon to consider in
the facts and circumstances of the present case."

[Emphasis added is ours] Even though the judgment has been rendered in the context of Article 9 of
India-U.K DTAA, wherein there is no specific definition of operation of ships, i.e., it is not qualified
by the words, owner, lessee or charterer, however, the interpretation of the word slot charter within
the ambit of definition of operation of ships clearly indicates that even if the journey has been
undertaken either partly by feeder vessel under a charter/slot charter arrangement and partly by
mother vessel or through and through a charter/ slot charter arrangement, it would still fall within
the ambit of operation of ships in terms of Article 8. Their Lordships after referring to the English
judgment have observed as under:-
"12. Before referring to the provisions of the Act and the DTAA, it is necessary to
understand the nature of connecting carrier Agreements which provides for the hire
of container slot spaces. In Maritime Law (6 th Edition) the author Christopher Hill
states:-
SLOT CHARTER PARTIES This has reference to the carriage of containers, or to use
current jargon, TEUs (20 foot equivalent units). The ship owner or operator "rents
out" or hires a "piece" of space (a percentage of the total space available on the vessel)
for carrying TEUs in return for which he receives hire calculated in accordance with
the number of slots 46 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 (accommodation for each TEU) payable whether or not
those slots or spaces are actually used.
In his judgment in the Tychy (1999) 2 Lloyds Rep.21) Clarke L J said "...... there is no
distinction in principle between a slot charter and a voyage charter of a part of a ship.
They are both in sense charterers of a space in a ship. A slot charter is simply an
example of a voyage charter of part of a ship". Clarke LJ further on in his judgment at
p. 22 gave his view that a slot charterer could even be described as the charterer of
the ship, not merely a charterer."
The reference to this commentary which in turn refers to the judgment is only to
indicate what a slot charter is and that such agreements have been in use for decades.
Needless to add that our reference to the same has no bearing upon Admiralty law
including on the aspect of arrest of ships.
The assessment order sets out clause 2 of the Connecting Carrier Agreement between
the respondent and OEL, which reads as under:-
"2(a) The carrier has offered container slots space to the line (respondent) and the
line (respondent) has accepted to use such space on as/when required basis."
[Emphasis added] The observations of the Honble High Court may be general but is
universally applicable wherever interpretation of operation of ships is required,
because their Lordships have explained the concept of operation of ships qua

slot/space charter arrangements with third party, especially as explained in para 26 &
27 of the judgment (as reproduced above). Once the word Charter of a ship is
reckoned or understood as slot/space 47 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 charter arrangement or joint service arrangement with third party, then it
would be too myopic to restrict the meaning of operation of ships only to the journey undertaken as
owner or lessee or charterer of a ship either for whole leg of journey or part of journey. There is no
stipulation under Article 8 that wherever passengers or cargos etc. are transported under charter
arrangement with third party which includes slot or space charter, then, one leg of journey should
be on vessel owned or leased by the shipping or Aircraft Company. As mentioned above, the word
"Charterer" will include third party/joint service arrangement of slot or space in a ship and hence
the transportation under such arrangement will be reckoned as profit from operation of ships. Thus,
we agree with the contentions of the ld. Senior Counsel that even if the entire leg of journey is
undertaken by a shipping company through and through charter arrangement or joint service
arrangement, the benefit of Article 8 cannot be denied, because it will still fall within the ambit and
scope of operation of ships under Article 8 (even under India- Singapore DTAA).
17. So far as the issue of establishing linkage between transportation by feeder vessel and mother
vessel of the ship owned or leased by the assessee, as discussed in the decision of MISC Berhad
(supra), which has been heavily relied upon by the ld. CIT-DR, we find that in that case the benefit
of Article 8 was denied to part of the shipping journey which was carried through feeder vessels
under slot charter arrangement with third party despite the fact that Assessing Officer himself has
given a finding that there was a linkage between the transportation cargo by feeder vessel belonging
to other 48 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 enterprise to the main voyage carried out by the mother ship owned by
the assessee. The assessee in that case had established that there is a linkage between the
transportation right from the Indian port to hub port by the feeder vessel and from hub port to
mother vessel and then to the final destination port. The only controversy involved there was,
whether part of the journey from Indian port to hub port through feeder vessel was eligible for
benefit of Article 8 or not, to which the Tribunal has decided the matter in favour of the assessee as
discussed above. It was in this context the Tribunal has observed that the linkage between
transportation by feeder vessel and mother vessel was established and therefore, benefit of Article 8
cannot be denied. The decision as relied by the ld. CIT(A) has also been discussed and distinguished
by the Tribunal in the case of MISC Berhad (supra). Therefore, we are not adjudicating the
applicability of said decisions separately because, now in the wake of decision of Hon'ble
Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Balaji Shipping U.K Ltd. (supra), these judgments are no
longer applicable. Once it is held that chartering includes slot charter, space charter and it falls
within the ambit of operation of ships, then the benefit of Article 8 cannot be denied simple on the
ground that the transportation has been done either partly or fully through slot charter arrangement
or joint charter arrangement, etc. Thus, in view of our discussion above, we hold that so far as denial
of benefit of Article 8 in respect of 97 ships for sums aggregating to Rs.97,29,89,746/- is not justified
and we direct the Assessing Officer to give the benefit of Article 8 in respect of 97 ships, which has
been denied by the CIT(A).


ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
18. So far as the freight receipt of Rs.1,36,89,191/- in respect of 4 ships is concerned, it is an

admitted fact that no evidence whatsoever or documents could be furnished by the assessee either
before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) or even before us and, therefore, we hold that to the
extent of freight receipt of Rs.1,36,89,191/-, the benefit of Article 8 will not be available to the
assessee and same is directed to be taxed in India under the relevant statutory provisions. Thus, the
issue relating to benefit of Article 8 is decided partly in favour of the assessee.
19. In view of our finding given above, the issue relating to Permanent Establishment (PE) and
attribution of income to PE, as raised vide ground nos. 4 and 5, has become purely academic and,
therefore, no separate adjudication is required. Once we have held that assessee is entitled for
benefit of Article 8, then attribution of income in India through agency PE will not arise. Thus,
ground nos. 4 and 5 is treated as infructuous.
20. As regards the issue raised with regard to allowability of interest u/s 234B of the Act, it is
admitted by both the parties that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the
Jurisdictional High Court in the case of NGC Network Asia LLC, 313 ITR 187 (Bom.). Accordingly, in
view of the admitted position, we hold that the assessee is not liable for levy of interest u/s 234B of
the Act.
21. In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed.

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th February, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.S. PANNU) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Date: 16.2.2017
*SSL*
Copy to :
1) The Appellant
2) The Respondent
3) The CIT(A) concerned
4) The CIT concerned
5) The D.R, "L" Bench, Mumbai
6) Guard file

By Order
Dy./Asstt. Registrar
I.T.A.T, Mumbai

Apl Co. Pte LTD., Mumbai Vs Adit (Int'L Taxation) - 1 (1), ... On 16 February, 2017

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Apl Co. Pte LTD., Mumbai Vs Adit (Int'L Taxation) - 1 (1), ... On 16 February, 2017

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Apl Co. Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs Adit (Int'L Taxation)-1(1), ...

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai

BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA NO. 4435/MUM/2013 : (A.Y : 2008-09)

APL Co. Pte Ltd. Vs ADIT(IT)-1(1), Mumbai

Assessee by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala,

Date of Hearing : 14/02/2017

PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:

2 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 1

adjustment of cross claims and settlement on account of set-off tantamount to an

Notwithstanding the above and:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 2

4 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

8. Further to Ground No. 2, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 3

1 Conti Germany 84,80,169 -

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 4

7 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

Gross receipt and detention Rs.11,04,58,63,611/-

charges from shipping

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 5

i) On applicability of Article 24:-

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 6

v) On applicability of Article 24 to income covered by Article

11 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

The Assessee's contention that Article 24 applies only

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 7

12 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

The letter issued by the IRAS confirming that freight

It is not a circular issued by the IRAS.

It can be regarded just as an opinion not backed by any statutory authority.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 8

x) Conclusion on Article 24 - summary:-

The language of Article 24 is categorical and it provides

14 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

The onus is on the assessee to produce proper

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 9

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 10

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 11

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 12

"Article 24: Limitation of relief -

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 13

"Charge of income tax:

23 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 14

1. We refer to our discussions on the subject.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 15

[Emphasis added is ours] 26 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

ITA No. 4435/Mum/2013 From the aforesaid Certificate/Confirmation given by IRAS, it is

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 16

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 17

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 18

31 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 19

34 APL Co. Pte. Ltd.

iv) Delta Airlines vs. ADIT, [2010] 124 ITD 114.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 20

Sr. Name of Agreement/ No of Collections Collections Freight +

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 21

II Ship Validation 16 30,84,44,733 33,36,45,878 64,20,90,611

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64892747/ 22