Short Note
In a recent judgment[1], the Bombay High Court interpreted the exemption condition under the India-Singapore DTAA and held that the limitation of benefit provision would not apply to the assessee. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) had taken an unduly restrictive view of the exemption provision to deny the assessee the rightful benefit. And the High Court rightfully refused to accept the AO’s view.
Issue
The assessee was a Foreign Institutional Investor registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’). The assessee was investing in debt instruments in India and its return for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 declared a capital gains from the sale of such debt instruments. The assessee claimed exemption under Article 13(4), India-Singapore DTAA for the capital gains. The impugned provision stated that the gains from the sale of a property (dent instrument in this case) would be taxable only in the State of which the assessee was a resident. The assessee in this case was a resident of Singapore and thus it argued that the capital gains were only taxable in Singapore and were exempt from taxation in India by virtue of Article 13(4).
The AO, however, relied on Article 24(1) of the India-Singapore DTAA and denied the assessee’s exemption claim. Article 24(1) stated that:
Where this Agreement provides (with or without other conditions) that income from sources in a Contracting India State shall be exempt from tax, or taxed at a reduced rate III that- Contracting State and under the laws in force in the other Contracting State, the said income is subject to tax by 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. (emphasis added)
The AO did not pay attention to the phrase underlined above and stated that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption only to the extent the capital gains were remitted to Singapore. However, the assessee argued that the amount that was remitted to Singapore was irrelevant as the assessee was liable to tax for its worldwide income in Singapore since it was a tax resident of Singapore.
Bombay High Court Upholds Assessee’s Claim of Exemption
The Bombay High Court endorsed the assessee’s position and stated that the AO insisting on evidence of repatriation was an inaccurate statement. The High Court stated that the assessee had placed on record a certificate from the Singapore Tax Authorities stating that the income of assessee from debt instruments in India would be taxable in Singapore irrespective of the amount received or remitted in Singapore. And that the said income of assessee would be treated as accruing in or derived from Singapore. Accordingly, the High Court concluded that:
Therefore, Singapore authorities have themselves certified that the capital gain income would be brought to tax in Singapore without reference to the amount remitted or received in Singapore. The AO could not have come to a conclusion otherwise. (para 13)
The High Court cited Circular No. 789 which was issued on 13 April 2000 which inter alia stated that certificates of residence issued by the treaty partner are to be accepted as valid. While the Circular was issued under the India-Mauritius DTAA, the High Court noted that its implication and import was sufficiently clear; and it held that the certificates issued by the Singapore Tax Authorities will constitute sufficient evidence for accepting the legal position. The High Court also supported its conclusion by citing the Madras High Court’s judgment in Lakshmi Textile Importers Ltd[2] where a similar principle was reiterated, i.e., the certificate issued by Singapore Tax Authorities should be treated as sufficient evidence of the position of law in Singapore and AO should not try to interpret the law of Singapore.
The Bombay High Court adopted the correct view and reminded AO that once a treaty partner has issued a certificate stating the position of law in their jurisdiction, it is not open to the AO to dispute the correctness of that legal position. In the impugned case, the AO was interpreting the tax law of Singapore contrary to the legal position stated in the certificate issued by Singapore Tax Authorities. Such an attempt by AO belied acceptable interpretive approaches adopted towards tax treaties and domestic tax statutes.
[1] Commissioner of Income Tax v M/s Citicorp Investment Bank. Income Tax Appeal No. 256 of 2018, decided on 21.06.2023. Available at https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/capital-gain-taxed-singapore-bombay-high-court-exemption-fii-231459?infinitescroll=1
[2] Commissioner of Income Tax v Lakshmi Textile Importers Ltd 245 ITR 522.