DIT vs. A. P. Moller Maersk A/S (Bombay High Court)

The assessee had three agents working for them viz. Maersk Logistics India Limited (MLIL), Maersk India Private Limited (MIPL) and Safmarine India (Pvt) Limited (SIPL). These agents would book cargo and act as clearing agents for the assessee. In order to help them in this business, the assessee had procured and maintained a global telecommunication facility called MaerskNet which is a vertically integrated communication system. The agents would incur pro rata costs for using the said system and the agents share of the cost was, therefore, recovered from these three agents. According to the assessee, it was merely a system of cost sharing and hence the payments received by the assessee from MIPL, MLIL and SIPL were in the nature of reimbursement of expenses. However, the AO and CIT(A) held that the amounts paid by these three agents to the assessee is consideration / fees for technical services rendered by the assessee and taxable in India under Article 13(4) of the DTAA and assessed tax at 20% under section 115A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee submitted before the Tribunal that without this system, it was not possible to conduct international shipping business efficiently and in having the system set up, the assessee had incurred costs. A share of this cost would have to be borne by each of the agents which utilise the system and, accordingly, these pro rata costs relatable to each of the agents was billed to the agents and these amounts were thus paid. It was merely a “charging back” to the agent, proportionate costs of the global shipping communications system and did not, in any manner, amount to rendering of any technical services. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee. On appeal by the department to the High Court HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) There is no finding by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner that there was any profit element involved in the payments received by the assessee from its Indian agents. On the other hand, having considered the various submissions, we are of the view that no technical services as contemplated by the Act have been rendered in the instant case;

(ii) In Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. Safmarine Container Lines NV (2014) 209 ITR 366, this Court had occasion to consider the effect of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Belgium in which the questions involved were whether the income from inland transport of cargo within India was covered by Article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Tax Treaty between India and Belgium. This Court, while considering the said issue found that the assessee was not liable to tax by virtue of DTAA in that case. Moreover, in the present case, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to come to any different view. In our view, the Tribunal has correctly observed that utilization of the Maersk Net Communication system was an automated software based communication system which did not require the assessee to render any technical services. It was merely a cost sharing arrangement between the assessee and its agents to efficiently conduct its shipping business. The Maersk Net used by the agents of the assessee entailed certain costs reimbursement to the assessee. It was part of the shipping business and could not be captured under any other provisions of the Income Tax Act except under DTAA;

(iii) In Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Siemens Aktiongeselleschaft reported in [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom) this Court has held that once there is a treaty between two sovereign nations, though it is open to a sovereign Legislature to amend its laws, a DTAA entered into by the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 90(1) of the Act must be honoured. The provisions of Section 9 Income Tax Act were applicable and the provisions of DTAA, if more beneficial than the I.T. Act, the provisions of DTAA would prevail. Thus, in the instant case also, it is not possible for the revenue to unilaterally decide contrary to the provisions of the DTAA.