Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-2 v. Hapag Lloyd Ag

DDR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1362 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)-2 ..Appellant vs. Hapag Lloyd AG,C/o Hapag Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent …........ Mr. Tejveer Singh for appellant.Mr. Nishant Thakkar a/w. Ms. Jasmine Amalsadvala i/b. PDSLegal for respondent. …........ CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 6 JANUARY 2020 P.C.:- Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. 2.The present Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10. 3.Learned counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attentionto the order passed by this Court in the Appeal in the case ofRespondent – Assessee for the earlier Assessment Year. 4.The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to theAppeal filed by the Revenue in respect of the Respondent – 46. itxa 1362-17.doc Assessee Assessment Year 2007-08. The observations arereproduced as under :- “4.Ostensibly, the direction of the DRP, which has beensought to be challenged by the Revenue before us, are basedon the order of the Tribunal dated 14/8/2013 (supra) in theassessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-08, whichcontinues to subsist. As a consequence, we find no reason tointerfere in the directions made by the DRP. The only pleaof the Revenue, as manifested in the above stated Ground ofappeal, is that an appeal has been preferred in the HighCourt against the order of the Tribunal for assessment year2007-08. So however, mere filing of an appeal does notdistract from the fact that the order of the Tribunal dated14/08/2013 (supra) continues to hold the field inasmuch asthe same has not been altered by any higher authority. As aconsequence, we find no merit in the appeal of the Revenuewhich is hereby dismissed.” 5.The Division Bench of this Court while considering theAppeal for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in Income Tax AppealNo. 602 of 2014 has observed as under :- “ P.C :- This Appeal under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961(the Act), challenges the order dated 14[th]August, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2The Revenue has urges only the followingquestion of law for our consideration:“Whether on the facts and in the circumstance ofthe case and in law, the income of the assessee by wayof slot chartering would from a part of income from 46. itxa 1362-17.doc operations of ships exempt under Article 8 of theDTAA?” 3We find that the impugned order of theTribunal has allowed the Respondent's appeal by followingthe decision of this Court in Director of Income Tax(International Taxation) v/s. Balaji Shipping UK Ltd.,(2012) 211 Taxmann page 535. In the above case, this Courtwas concerned with Article 9(1) of the Indo-UK DTAA. Inthe present case, Article 8 of Indo-German DTAA which issimilar to Article 9(1) of the Indo-UK DTAA, arises forconsideration. Therefore, the impugned order allowed theRespondent-Assessee's appeal before it by following thedecision of this Court in Balaji Shipping UK Ltd., (supra). 4Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel appearingfor the Revenue very fairly states that the issue standsconcluded in favour of the Respondent-Assessee by thedecision of this Court in Balaji Shipping UK (supra). 5In view of the above, the question as frameddoes not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus,not entertained. 6Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as tocosts.” 6.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe Respondent that the issue stands covered as above, the Appealis not entertained and accordingly dismissed. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)