A.P. MOLLER MAERSK A.S, MUMBAI V. DDIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8703/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 870319914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDER KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PORUS KAKA; DIVESH CHAWLA
• Keywords: Business income; Double taxation relief; Additional evidence; Permanent establishment
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH L, MUMBAI , !' # $## #% , & !' ' BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . : 8703 AND 8704/ / / 2010 2006-07 & 2007-08 ITAS NO. : 8703 AND 8704/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08) ------------------------------------------ A.P. MOLLER MAERSK A/S, C/O MAERSK INDIA PVT. LTD., 12 TH FLOOR, TOWER A, URMI ESTATE, GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL(W), MUMBAI -400 013 PAN: AAECA 4801 C VS DDIT(IT)- 1(1), SCINDIA HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, N.M. ROAD, MUMBAI -400 038 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. PORUS KAKA & MR. DIVESH CHAWLA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDER KUMAR /DATE OF HEARING : 12-08-2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-08-2013 ! + O R D E R $## #% , : PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL -1, PASSED UNDER 144C(5) OF THE AC T, DATED 16.09.2010. 2. SINCE THE ONLY GROUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WE ARE TAKING UP ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AS THE LEAD CASE. SINCE THE GR OUNDS ARE COMMON, WE ARE PASSING A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 2 ITA NO. 8703/MUM/2010: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 : 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATI ON) 1(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI (DDIT) AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP), ERRED IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND DENMARK (TAX TREATY) IN RESPECT OF TOTAL FREIGHT INCOME OF RS. 18,50,00,320 /- EARNED FROM FOUR VESSELS NAMELY ATLANTIC LADY, PONL LOS ANGELS, INDE PENDENT SPIRIT AND ORIENT PATRIOT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS UNDISPUTEDLY A SHIPPING COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F OPERATION OF SHIPS IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC. 1 (B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, LEARNED DDIT AND DRP ERRED IN ESTIMATING INCOME OF RS. 1,85,00,032/- IN RESPECT T O ABOVE-MENTIONED FOUR VESSELS 10% OF TOTAL FREIGHT RECEIPTS, APPLY ING RULE 10 OF THE INCOME- TAX RULES, 1962. 1 (C) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE DDIT AND DRP ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT SINCE THE INDIAN AGENT OF THE APPELLANT HAS BE EN REMUNERATED WITH A COMMISSION AT ARMS LENGTH, NO FURTHER ATTRIBUTIO N CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT SINCE ITS TAX LIABILITY IS E XTINGUISHED. 1 (D) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED DDIT AND DRP ERRED IN NOT TREATING THE INCOME FROM FOUR VESSELS AS INCOME FRO M BUSINESS OF OPERATION OF SHIPS IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC AND, TH EREBY ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44B OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (IT ACT). THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE FINDING OF THE DDIT AND DRP THAT IT IS NOT SHIPPING INCOME AS IT IS NOT FROM OPERATION OF SHIPS IS ERRONEOUS, PERVERSE AND CONTRARY TO THE RECORD AND OUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE. 1 (E) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE DDIT AND DRP ERRED IN CONSIDERING GROSS FREIGHT RECEIPTS PERTAINING TO VESSEL ORIENT PATRIOT AT RS. 181,932,801/- AS AGAINST RS. 154,566,657/- AND TH EREBY, MAKING AN ERRONEOUS ADDITION OF RS. 27,366,144/-. 2 (A) THE LEARNED DDIT AND DRP ERRED IN HOLDING THA T THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,57,57,605/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FRO M MAERSK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (MIPL), MAERSK INFOTECH SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (MISIPL), MAERSK LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (MLIPL), SAFMARINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SIPL) AND MAERSK CONCORDE AIRFREIGHT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (MCAIPL), TOWARDS THEIR SHARE OF IT GLOBAL PORTFOLIO TRACKING SYSTEM COSTS, IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF T HE APPELLANT UNDER THE IT ACT AND TAX TREATY AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SE RVICES. 2 (B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED D DIT AND DRP OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO T AX IN INDIA AS PER ARTICLE 9 OF THE TAX TREATY BEING DIRECTLY A PART O F THE SHIPPING BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. 2 (C) THE LEARNED DDIT AND DRP ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS RECOVERED REPRESENT A MERE ALLOCATION OF CO STS AND HENCE A REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES WHICH IS NOT AN INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 2 (D) IN ANY EVENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABO VE, THE LEARNED DDIT AND DRP OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE AMOUNT, IF CONSIDER ED AS INCOME, WILL BE TAXABLE AS BUSINESS PROFITS AND IN THE ABSENCE O F THE APPELLANTS PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT (PE) IN INDIA, THE INCOME IF AT ALL, IS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA UNDER THE TAX TREATY. A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 3 2 (E) THE LEARNED DDIT AND DRP ERRED IN HOLDING THA T MIPL IS PE OF THE APPELLANT IN INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE TAX TREAT Y. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THEIR FREIGHT INCOME IS FULLY EXEMPT F ROM TAX UNDER ARTICLE 9 AND DOES NOT FALL UNDER ARTICLE 7 AND THUS NOT CHAR GEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED DDIT AND DRP HAVE ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST OF RS. 43,44,458/- UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE IT ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY ADVANCE TAX ON THE BASIS OF (A) D OUBLE INCOME-TAX RELIEF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAX DEPARTMENT ITS ELF, AND (B) THE FACT THAT THE INCOME OF APPELLANT WAS ANYWAY TAX DEDUCTI BLE AT SOURCE. 4. GROUNDS NO. 1(A) TO 1(E) PERTAIN TO ESTIMATION OF RS. 1,85,00,032/- AS BUSINESS INCOME, DISTINCT FROM SHIPPING BUSINESS. 5. THE FACTS, AS EMERGING FROM THE FINAL ORDER OF THE AO, IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE DRP ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A DANISH PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY AND IS A TAX RESIDENT OF DENM ARK. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN OPERATION OF SHIPS ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS, WHEREIN IT OPERATES HANDLING OF CARGO AND CONTAINERS ON G LOBAL BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ITS INCOME FROM FREIGHT AT RS. 26,369,766,322/-. AS PER THE AR AND AS PER THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE TOUCHED INDIAN PORTS AND CARRIED O N 145 VOYAGES. OUT OF THESE 145 VOYAGES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE EVIDEN CE FOR THE CLAIM OF INDIAN DEMARK DTAA IN 140 CASES, WHICH INCLUDE D SHIP REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES AND COPIES OF CHARTERED PARTY AG REEMENTS. WITH RESPECT OF 5 SHIPS, EACH EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE PRODU CED, BUT IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DRP, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE T O PROVIDE DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF MAERSK ALASKA, FOR WHICH DRP GRA NTED RELIEF. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO 4 SHIPS , I.E. S. NO. NAME OF THE SHIP AMOUNT 1 ATLANTIC LADY, 9,05,576 2 PONL LOS ANGELS 11,40,129 3 INDEPENDENT SPIRIT 10,21,814 4 ORIENT PATRIOT 18,19,32,801 OUT OF THESE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT DOCUMENTS OF OR IENT PATRIOT ARE NOW AVAILABLE AND WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND IN THAT MATTER, DOCUMENTS NOW SUBMITTED , MAY BE TAKEN AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IF REQUIRED. ACCORDING TO THE AR, THEREFORE, DISPUTE ONLY RELATES TO ITEMS NO. 1 TO 3. A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 4 6. REVERTING BACK TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN OPERATION OF SHIPS AND CONTAINERS ON OWN SHIPS OR O N SLOT HIRE, ON INTERNATIONAL WATERS. THE AO ACCEPTS THAT OPERATION OF SHIPS IN INTERNATIONAL WATER/TRAFFIC IS COVERED BY ARTICLE 9 OF INDIA DENM ARK DTAA. IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH PROOF REGARDING OWNERSHIP AND/OR CHARTERING OF THE SHIPS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RESPONSE PROVIDED PORT CLEARANCE CE RTIFICATES, SHIP REGISTRATION AND CHARTER PARTY AGREEMENTS IN 141 CASES OUT OF 14 5 CASES. THE AO, ACCEPTED THE DOCUMENTS, DETAILS AND CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE THAT FREIGHT INCOME IS TAXED IN DENMARK. BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SATISFY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON FOUR CASES, THE INCOME ATTRI BUTED TO THEM, WAS BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER INDIAN TAX LAWS. THE AO, AS PE R THE SUBMISSIONS BY THE AR, EVEN IGNORED SECTION 44B AND COMPUTED THE I NCOME AT 10% OF RECEIPTS ON GROSS BASIS, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. 7. THE AR, ON THESE FACTS, SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ANNEXED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND FOR CONVENIENCE, THE DETAILS ARE PLACED BEFORE US, WHEREIN HE DEMONS TRATED THAT HOW THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 26,369,766, 322/- HAD BEEN ARRIVED AT AND HE ALSO PLACED COMPLETE DETAIL/BREAKUP ON PO RT WISE RECEIPTS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS INCLUDE THE RECEIPTS OF THE FOUR SHIPS AS WELL. 8. THE AR, IN CONTINUATION OF HIS ARGUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US THE COPY OF INDIA DENMARK DTAA AND POINTED OUT THAT ARTICLE 3(J ): INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC MEANS ANY TRANSPORT BY A SHIP OR AIRCRAFT OPERATED BY AN ENTERPRISE OF A CONTRACTING STATE EXCEPT WHEN THE SHIP OR AIRCRAFT IS OPERATED SOLELY BETWEEN PLACES IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE. 9. ARTICLE 9: SHIPPING 1. PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF SHIPS IN INTE RNATIONAL TRAFFIC SHALL BE TAXABLE ONLY IN THE CONTRACTING STATE IN WHICH THE PLACE OF EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE ENTERPRISE IS SITUATED. 2. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 1, SUC H PROFITS MAY BE TAXED IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE DERIVED P ROVIDED THAT THE TAX SO CHARGED SHALL NOT EXCEED: (A) DURING THE FIRST FIVE FISCAL YEARS AFTER THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THIS CONVENTION, 50 PER CENT, AND (B) DURING THE SUBSEQUENT FIVE FISCAL YEARS, 25 PER CENT, A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 5 OF THE TAX OTHERWISE IMPOSED BY THE INTERNAL LAW OF TH AT STATE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ONLY THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 1 SHALL BE APPLICABLE. 3. THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 1 SHALL ALSO APPLY TO PR OFITS FROM THE PARTICIPATION IN A POOL, A JOINT BUSINESS OR AN INTERNATIONAL OPERATING A GENCY ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION OF SHIPS. 4. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE: (A) INTEREST ON FUNDS CONNECTED WITH THE OPERATION OF SHIPS IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC SHALL BE REGARDED AS INCOME FROM THE OPERATION O F SUCH SHIPS AND THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 12 SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH INTEREST; AND (B) PROFITS FROM THE OPERATION OF SHIPS INCLUDES PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE USE, MAINTENANCE OR RENTAL OF CONTAINERS (INCLUDING TRAILERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF CONTAINERS) IN CONNEC TION WITH THE TRANSPORT OF GOODS OR MERCHANDISE IN INTERNATIONAL TRAF FIC. 10. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT TWO EXPRESSIONS NEED ATTEN TION, I.E. EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND THE USE OF THE WORD CONTAINE RS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN SO FAR AS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT IS CONCER NED, IT LIES IN DENMARK BECAUSE THE HO OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN DENMARK AND WHEN THE SAME ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT CONTAINERS, HE S UBMITS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIPTS FROM OPERATION OF SHIPS FROM TH E USE, MAINTENANCE OR RENTAL OF CONTAINERS, IN CONNECTION WITH TRA NSPORT OF GOODS OR MERCHANDISE IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC, TREATY SHALL B ECOME OPERATIVE ON THE BASIS OF THIS ARTICLE, THE AR SUBMITS THA T ONCE THE ASSESSEE OPERATES ITS OWN SHIPS, CHARTERS THE SHIPS, TAK ES SLOT HIRE IN ADDITION TO ITS OWN OPERATIONS OR OPERATES IN INTERNATIONA L TRAFFIC BY FEEDER VESSELS TAKING THE MERCHANDISE FROM PORT TO HUB, IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE AND ITS CUSTOMERS ARE CONCERNED, IS OPERATION OF SHIPS AND IS ONE COMPOSITE BUSINESS. 11. THE AR, THEREFORE, RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DDIT V B ALAJI SHIPPING UK LTD., REPORTED IN 253 CTR 460 (BOM) (HEAD NOTE S), HELD, INCOME FROM SLOT HIRE AGREEMENTS FALLS WITHIN S. 44B THEY MUST BE HELD TO BE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ART. 9(1). ALTHOUGH THIS MAY INDICATE THAT INCOME FROM SLOT HIRE AGREEMENTS FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ART. 9(1) PER SE THE COURT DOES NOT WISH TO GO THAT FAR. THIS JUDGMENT WOULD NOT APPLY TO ASSE SSEES WHO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF SHIPPING CARGO ONLY BY AVAILING THE SLOT HIRE FACILITIES OBTAINED BY THEM. IN SOME CASES GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE , A UK COMPANY, BY AVAILING OF THE SLOT HIRE FACILITY OBTAINED BY IT ON THE SHI P OF ANOTHER FROM A PORT IN INDIA UPTO A HUB ABROAD AND FROM THERE TRANSPORTIN G THE GOODS FURTHER TO THEIR FINAL DESTINATION UPON A SHIP OWNED OR CHARTERED O R OTHERWISE CONTROLLED BY IT, WHEREAS IN OTHER CASES GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM A PORT IN INDIA DIRECTLY TO THEIR FINAL DESTINATION TO A POR T ABROAD BY AVAILING A SLOT HIRE FACILITY OBTAINED BY IT ON THE SHIP OF ANOTHER. A C ASE OF THE FIRST TYPE CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN ART. 9 OF THE DTAA. FIRSTLY, ART. 9 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SHIP TO BE A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 6 OWNED BY AN ENTERPRISE/ASSESSEE. IT MERELY REQUIRES TH E INCOME TO BE FROM THE OPERATION OF SHIPS IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC. THERE IS N O WARRANT FOR ADDING TO THE ARTICLE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SHIP BEING OWNED BY THE ENTERPRISE. A CHARTER IS CERTAINLY CONTEMPLATED BY ART. 9. SO WOULD AN ENTERPR ISE THAT CONTROLS THE MANAGEMENT/OPERATION OF THE SHIP BE INCLUDED IN ART. 9 EVEN IF IT DOES NOT OWN THE SHIP. SUCH ENTERPRISES EARN INCOME FROM THE OPERA TION OF SHIPS CHARTERED OR OTHERWISE CONTROLLED AND MANAGED BY THEM. IF ART. 9 IS TO BE CONSTRUED NARROWLY, AS SUGGESTED BY THE APPELLANT, IT WOULD BE DENUDED OF MUCH OF ITS EFFECT. SLOT HIRE AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN AND REMAIN A RE GULAR FEATURE OF THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY FOR DECADES. WHETHER THEY CONSTITUT E A CHARTER OF A PORTION OF A SHIP OR NOT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER. IN A CASE OF TH E FIRST TYPE, THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY AVAILING OF THE SLOT HIRE FACILITY IS AN INTEGRAL PA RT 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 TRAFF IC, CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA. ENTERPRISES OPERATING IN ANY MODE OR MANNER, DO N OT 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 OR 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 CARR IAGE OF GOODS BY SEA IS THUS PERFORMED BY SUCH ENTERPRISES ON A PRINCIPAL TO PRINCI PAL 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 ENTERPR ISES BUSINESS OF OPERATING SHIPS. WITHOUT AVAILING SLOT HIRE FACILITIES, AN E NTERPRISE WOULD BE UNABLE TO CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS OF OPERATING SHIPS IN IN TERNATIONAL TRAFFIC AT ALL IN MANY CASES. THEY MAY WELL LOSE MUCH OF THEIR BUSINESS. EVEN IF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IS IRRELEVANT TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE D TAA, IT INDICATES THE CLOSE NEXUS BETWEEN SLOT HIRES AND THE BUSINESS OF 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 S LOT CHARTERS. THE SECOND TYPE OF CASE POSES SOME DIFFICULTY. HOWEV ER, EVEN SUCH CASES FALL UNDER ART. 9(1). ARTICLE 9 WOULD APPLY IN RESPECT OF AN ENTERPRISE THAT CARRIES ON THE BUSINESS OF OPERATION OF SHIPS IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFF IC 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. AN ENTERPRISE MAY NOT PLY THE SHIPS OWNED OR CHARTERED OR OTHERWISE CONTROLLED OR MANAGED BY IT IN RESPECT OF CER TAIN ROUTES. IT WOULD HOWEVER, ON ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS EXIGENCIES, BE REQ UIRED TO CARRY CARGO ON SUCH ROUTES. BY AVAILING THE FACILITY OF SLOT HIRE AGREEME NTS, THE ENTERPRISE DOES NOT ARRANGE THE SHIPMENT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER OF THE SAID VESSEL, BUT DOES NOT ON ITS OWN ACCOUNT ON A PRINCIPAL-TO-PRINCIPAL BASIS WI TH ITS CLIENTS. SUCH CASES ALSO HAVE A NEXUS TO THE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE OPERATION OF SHIPS. THEY ARE ANCILLARY TO AND COMPLEMENT TO THE OPERATION OF SHIPS B Y THE ENTERPRISE. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE SLOT HIRE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT CO VERED BY ART. 9(1) PER SE, THE RESPONDENT WOULD STILL BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS FOR IN ANY EVENT SUCH SLOT HIRE AGREEMENTS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART O F THE SHIPPING OPERATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT, WHO ADMITTEDLY HAD ALSO CHARTERED TWO SHIPS. A VIEW TO THE CONTRARY WOULD AFFECT THE BUSINESS OF SUCH PARTIES MER ELY BECAUSE THE SHIPS CHARTERED BY THEM DO NOT PLY ON CERTAIN ROUTES SUCH AS INDIA. ARTICLE 9(1) OF THE INDIA UK DTAA, ART. 8(1) OF THE MOD EL TAX CONVENTION AND THE SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE THERETO ARE SIMILAR. EACH OF THE M REFERS TO PROFITS OR INCOME OF AN ENTERPRISE FROM THE OPERATION OF SHIPS I N INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC. THE COMMENTARY ON MODEL TAX CONVENTION ON INCOME AND ON C APITAL (CONDENSED VERSION) OECD PUBLISHED BY THE OECD WOULD THEREFORE, AP PLY EQUALLY TO ART. 9(1) OF THE INDIA UK DTAA. AS FAR AS THE FIRST TYPE O F CASE IS CONCERNED VIZ., WHERE THE SLOT HIRE FACILITY IS AVAILED OF FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS FROM A PORT IN INDIA ONLY UPTO THE HUB PORT ABROAD AND IS THEREAFTER TRANS SHIPPED ON VESSELS ACTUALLY OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE UPTO THE FINAL DEST INATION, IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER SLOT HIRE AGREEMENTS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE DIREC TLY CONNECTED WITH THE OPERATION OF SHIPS OR NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE OPERATION OF SHIPS BY THE ENTERPRISE. IN SUCH CASES, THE SLOT HIRE AGREEMENTS A RE INEXTRICABLY INTERLINKED WITH AND CONNECTED TO THE OPERATION OF SHIPS BY THE ENTERPRISE. THE FIRST TYPE OF CASE WOULD IN FACT BE COVERED BY PARAS 4 AND 4.1 OF T HE COMMENTARY. THE A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 7 COMMENTARY HOWEVER, INDICATES THAT EVEN THE SECOND TY PE OF CASE WOULD BE COVERED BY ART. 9(1) IF THE SAME IS ONLY ANCILLARY TO TH E OPERATION OF SHIPS BY THE ENTERPRISE. THESE CASES FALL WITHIN PARA 4.2 OF THE COM MENTARY. INDEED IF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CONNECTED WITH THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF SHIP S IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC ARE INCLUDED IN ART. 9(1), IT MUST FOLLOW THAT INCOME FROM UTILIZ ING SLOT HIRE FACILITIES AS AVAILING OF IN THESE CASES WOULD FALL WITHIN ART. 9(1) F OR SLOT HIRES HAVE A CLOSER NEXUS, CONNECTION AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF SHIPS THAN THE ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIVITIES MENTIONED IN THE COMMENTARIES. 12. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF DIT V KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES, R EPORTED IN 220 CTR 268 (DEL). HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF KLM, THE ISSUE WAS INCOME FROM HIRE OF GODOWN FOR CARGO HANDLING. THE ITA T DELHI AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE BUSINESS IS ONE COMPOSITE BUSINESS, I.E. CARGO HANDLING, AND WAS NOT A CASE OF SEPARATE BUSINESS OF RENTING OUT THE PREMISES. 13. THE AR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ONCE COMPLETE DETA ILS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND THERE ARE NO ISSUES ON THE IMPUGNED ADD ITIONS EITHER IN PRECEDING YEARS OR EVEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR (WH ICH ALSO IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US) THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO IS INCORR ECT. HE ALSO SPECIFIED THAT IN SO FAR AS THE PROPORTION OF REVENUES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED THEN THE RATIO COMES DOWN TO LESS THEN EVEN .5%, THEREFORE, WHEN MAJOR AND SUBSTANTIAL RECEIPTS ARE FROM SHIPPING BUSINESS , WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AS BOMBAY, IN THE CASE OF BALAJI SHIPPING (SUPRA), WHEREIN, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED, IN THE CASE OF ON LY SLOT HIRE CASES, THAT, EVEN IF BUSINESS EXPIDIENCY IS IRRELEVANT TO T HE INTERPRETATION OF THE DTAA, IT INDICATES THE CLOSE NEXUS B ETWEEN SLOT HIRE AND THE OPERATION OF SHIPS IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC. ONC E SHIPPING BUSINESS IS ESTABLISHED, THEN THAT CERTAIN PORTION, HAVING CLOSE NEXUS , HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS INCOME FROM SHIPPING BUSINESS, AS DEFINED UNDER THE TREATY. 14. THE AR, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ERRED IN IGNOR ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44B, WHICH TALKS ABOUT SHIPPING BUSINES S ONLY. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THE AO NOT ONLY IGNORED THE P ROVISIONS OF A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 8 SECTION 44B BUT APPLIED OLD RULE 10 AND COMPUTED THE INCO ME AT 10% OF RECEIPTS. 15. THE AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT HOW AND ON WHAT BASIS THE AO EMPLOYED 10% IS KNOWN TO THE AO, AND ON THE ISSUE OF PE THE AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ANL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. V DDIT, ITA NO. 8874/MUM/2010, IT WAS HELD, THAT WHERE THE AE IS REMUNERATED ON ALP, NOTHING FURTHER WOULD BE LEFT TO ATTR IBUTE TO PE . 16. THE AR, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED HIS SUBMISSIONS ON THIS IS SUE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN BUSINESS OF SHIPPING AND CARGO/CO NTAINERS MOVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS, NO RECEIPTS ARE ATTRIBUT ABLE AND TAXED IN INDIA, AS THE TAXING STATE IS DENMARK. 17. THE DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION REQUIRES INVEST IGATION WITH REGARD TO THE CHARACTER OF RECEIPTS IN SO FAR AS RECEIPTS OF THE FOU R SHIPS ARE CONCERNED AND ALSO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IT WOULD BE BETTER IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE AO. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH THE SIDES. I N SO FAR AS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT IS UNDISPUTE D, THAT IT IS SHIPPING BUSINESS. IF ONCE, IT IS ACCEPTED IT IS SHIPPING BUSIN ESS THEN EITHER THE DTAA SHALL APPLY OR SECTION 44B SHALL APPLY. TH E AO HAS REMOVED THE RECEIPTS OF FOUR SHIPS ONLY BECAUSE THE DET AILS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED IN RESPECT OF LESS THEN .5% OF RECEIPTS. THE FACT THAT COMPLETE DETAILS HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE AO ALONG WITH T HE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH INCLUDES RECEIPTS ON THESE SHIPS ALSO CANNOT BE DENIED. 19. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE AO HAS ERRED IN NOT C ONSIDERING THE RECEIPTS OF THE FOUR SHIPS ONLY BECAUSE DETAILS WERE NOT PROVIDED FOR, THAT ITSELF CAN NOT BE A GROUND, BECAUSE, THE AO, HAS , WITH HIM POWERS TO CALL FOR THIRD PARTY DETAILS/EVIDENCE, WHICH HE CH OSE TO IGNORE. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AR THAT THE RATIO LA ID DOWN IN THE A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 9 DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KLM (SUPRA), WHERE, THE REVENUES FROM LEASE WERE ACCEPTED TO BE RELATED AN D HAVING CLOSE NEXUS WITH THE SHIPPING BUSINESS. EVEN IN THE CASE OF BALA JI SHIPPING ( SUPRA ), WHEREIN, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVES THAT E VEN THE NEXUS ESTABLISHING, SHIPPING BUSINESS, WOULD FALL WITHIN THE TREATY PROVISIONS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT 12% OF THE REVENUES G ENERATED WERE FROM SLOT HIRE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED TH AT SINCE THERE WAS CLOSE NEXUS WITH THE OPERATION OF SHIPS IN INTER NATIONAL TRAFFIC, DTAA WOULD APPLY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE OPERATION OF SHIPS IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN C ASE OF FOUR SHIPS, WHOSE REVENUES WERE LESS THAN EVEN .5% OF THE TOT AL REVENUES OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN T HE CASE OF BALAJI SHIPPING (SUPRA), WOULD FULLY APPLIES ON THE ASSESSEE. 20. WE ARE NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE AS WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FILED WITH THE RETURN, THAT R ECEIPTS IN THESE FOUR CASES ARE COVERED IN THOSE EXHAUSTIVE DETAILS , AND CONCUR WITH THE AR, THAT THE RECEIPTS PERTAINING TO THE FOUR SHIP S, AS WELL, FALL WITHIN THE TREATY AND ARE, THEREFORE, NOT EXIGIBLE TO TAX IN INDIA. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. RS. 1,85,00,032/-. 21. GROUND NO. 2(A) TO 2(E) PERTAINS TO RS. 16,57,57,605/- HE LD AS FTS. 22. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DOING SHIPPING BU SINESS ON GLOBAL BASIS AND TO KEEP TRACK OF SHIPS/VESSELS AND ITS CA RGO, IT PROVIDES TRACKING SERVICE TO ITS CUSTOMERS, WHOSE CARGO, THE ASSESSEE IS HANDLING. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE CARGO TRACKING SYSTEM IS PROVIDED TO ITS CUSTOMERS, IT CANNOT BE HELD AS FTS, BUT PURE AND SIMPLE INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF SHIPPING. THE ISSUE CAME UP B EFORE THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF AKTIESELSKABET DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET SVENDBORG, C/O MAERSK INDIA PRIVATE L IMITED, VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-1(1) IN ITAS NO. 208 0, 2081, A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 10 2082/MUM/2009 AND IN ITA NO. 4687/MUM/2009 IN CASE OF A.P. MOLLER MAERSK A/S V ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT) -1(1) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD, 17. THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR PROVIDING A FACILITY TO ITS AGENTS. THE PAYMENT RECEIVED IS NOT HING BUT A PAYMENT BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST FOR PROVIDING A PA RTICULAR FACILITY. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SHIPPING AND NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ANY TECHNICAL SERVICE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS RATIO OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WILL APPLY TO THE FACTS O F THE PRESENT CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT THE PAYMENT WAS FOR FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES HAS RELIED ON THE FA CT THAT THERE HAS BEEN USE OF SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENTS. THIS BY ITSELF WIL L NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLDING TECHNICAL SERVICES BEING RENDERED. ALL THE ABOVE FEATURES ENABLES BETTER AND EFFICIENT CONDUCT OF BUSINESS. I T IS DUE TO IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS ITS AGENTS ARE TH E BENEFICIARIES OF SUCH IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE O WNER OF ANY TECHNOLOGY TO PROVIDE THEM FOR A FEE TO PROSPECTIVE USER. THEY ARE THEMSELVES CONSUMERS OF THE TECHNOLOGY. & 15. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE C ASE OF DAMPSIKIBSSELSKABET AF 1912 A/S (SUPRA) DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE SAID CASE AND HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MIPL, MLIL AND SIPL WAS NOT IN THE NA TURE OF FTS AND THE SAME BEING PART OF THE INCOME FROM SHIPPING BUS INESS WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA AS PER ARTICLE 9 OF THE DTAA SINCE THE PLACE OF EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS SITUATED IN D ENMARK. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT M ADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALLOW THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THE ISSUE WAS DEALT WITH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 7676/MUM/2010, WHEREIN ALSO IT WA S HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM ITS AGENTS WAS NOT IN T HE NATURE OF FTS BUT REIMBURSEMENTS, NOT AMOUNTING TO GENERATION OF INCOME. 23. THE DR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE CASE LAWS REFERRED TO IN THE ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE AND ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT V KOTAK SECURITIES LTD., REPORTED IN 340 ITR 333, WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT PAYMENTS MADE TO STOCK EXCHANGE FOR TRADING THROUGH BOLT SYSTEM WAS IN THE NA TURE OF FTS AND PROVISIONS OF WITHHOLDING TAXES SHALL BE APPLICABLE. THE DR , A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 11 THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THERE ARE DECISIONS OF T HE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON THE ISSUE, BUT BECAUSE THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS ALSO THERE ON FTS, IT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. 24. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND HAVE PERUSED TH E CASES CITED BEFORE US. WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DR, BE CAUSE, STOCK EXCHANGE IS PROVIDING THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION ON BO LT AND FOR THAT COMPLETE SERVICE, THE SE IS CHARGING FROM ITS MEMBERS /BROKERS. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE ONLY PROVIDES INFORMATION REGARDING THE WHEREABOUTS OF CARGO, TO ITS AGENTS/CUSTOMERS. IN OUR OPINION, THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE IS DIFFERENT ON FACTS. ALSO THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES NEITHER PERTAIN ED TO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NOR CAME UNDER ANY TREATY. SINCE THE ISSUE IS ALREADY DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES IN THE ASSESS EES OWN CASES IN PRECEDING YEARS, WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAME AND SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 25. GROUND NO. 2(A) TO 2(E) IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 26. GROUND NO. 3 PERTAINS TO EXIGIBILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234B. 27. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. NGC NETWORK LT D., REPORTED IN 313 ITR 187, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HOLDS, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX AND THEREF ORE THE QUESTION OF CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B DID NOT ARISE . THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS A RESIDENT AND TAX RESIDENT OF DENMARK, AND TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO INDIA TAXES AND HENCE NOT LIABLE TO THE INTEREST LEVIABLE ON ADVANCE TAX. 28. THE DR ACCEPTS THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS COVERE D BY THE CASE CITED BY THE AR. 29. GROUND NO. 3 IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED. A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 12 30. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 8704/MUM/2010, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 : 31. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WH ETHER CARGO TRACKING SERVICE WOULD COME UNDER FTS. 32. WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ITA NO. 8703/MUM/2010 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS ORDER ITSELF. FOLLOWING THE SAME REA SONING, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL. 33. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON TH IS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,99,27,313/- MADE. 34. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 35. IN THE RESULT: BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 8703/M/2010 AND ITA NO. 8704/M/2010, ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( $## #% ) !' !' (RAJENDRA SINGH) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 28 TH AUGUST, 2013 / COPY TO:- 1) / THE APPELLANT. 2) / THE RESPONDENT. A.P. MOLLER M AERSK A/S ITAS 8703 & 8704/M/2010 13 3) THE DRP-I, /CIT(A) CONCERNED .. MUMBAI. 4) ! !' /CIT/DIT_____ CONCERNED, MUMBAI / THE DIT/CIT CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5) #$% & ' , ! & , ()* / THE D.R. L BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) %+ , COPY TO GUARD FILE. !-./ / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / [ 0 / 1 )2 ! & , () * DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *451 . . * CHAVAN, SR. PS