Section 172

Section 172 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 172, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• A.S. Glittre D/5 I/S Garonne v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  We paid tax on each voyage under section 172(4) and then elected under section 172(7) for a regular assessment, which came out much lower and produced a refund. The Department has refunded the tax but refused interest, saying what we paid was not advance tax. Is that right?
  No. Section 172(7) creates a legal fiction by which the payments already made under s.172(4) are treated as a payment in advance of the tax leviable for that assessment year, and the Supreme Court held that in construing that fiction all the consequences flowing from it must be assumed. The ad hoc assessment under s.172(4) is superseded and a regular assessment is made as per the provisions of the Act, so all the provisions of the Act relating to advance tax apply, and on excess payment the assessee is entitled to the excess and to interest on it.
• Union of India v Gosalia Shipping P Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our principal time-chartered a ship and loaded its own cargo at an Indian port. Is the hire paid to the shipowner taxable as an amount paid on account of carriage of goods?
  No. The Supreme Court held that under a time charter the payment is for the use and hire of the ship, and is due whether or not the charterer carries anything at all, so it cannot be an amount paid on account of the carriage of goods within section 172(2). Nor did the charterers receive anything on that account, because they loaded their own cargo rather than sub-letting the ship or carrying a third party's goods. The character of the payment does not change with the use the charterer makes of the vessel or because it happened to load in India. The appeal was dismissed.
• M/s Atlantic Shipping Pvt Ltd v ITO (International Taxation) High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Our principal's freight was exempt under Article 8, but the officer says Article 24 applies because the freight went to a London account. Who wins?
  The shipowner wins on these facts. The Gujarat High Court held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Article 8 of the India-Singapore treaty and that Article 24, the limitation of relief clause, does not apply, quashing the Tribunal's direction to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the Singapore tax authority's certificate.
• CIT v V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court, Full Bench) — section 172 is referable to section 44B, and where it applies there is no warrant for Chapter XVII or section 195 High CourtHelps taxpayer
  We are an Indian exporter. We paid demurrage to a foreign shipping company without deducting tax and the Assessing Officer has disallowed the whole payment under section 40(a)(i), saying section 172 is for non-residents and we are a resident. Does the payer have to be a non-resident before section 172 can be invoked?
  No. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court answered the referred question and held that s.172 and s.44B are to be read together — s.44B enacting the special provisions for computing the profits and gains of a non-resident's shipping business and s.172 enacting the scheme for the levy and recovery of tax on the ship — and that where s.172 governs, there is no warrant for applying the provisions in Chapter XVII for collection and recovery of tax and its deduction at source under s.195. The Court overruled the view in CIT v. Orient (Goa) Private Limited to the extent contrary to that, and directed the appeals to be listed before an appropriate Division Bench.
• DIT (International Taxation) v Venkatesh Karrier Ltd — Article 8 of the India-UAE treaty ousts the section 172 levy where the ship belongs to a UAE resident High CourtHelps taxpayer
  We are the Indian agent of a ship owned by a UAE company. We filed the section 172(3) return claiming nothing was payable because of the treaty, and the Assessing Officer taxed 7.5 per cent of the freight without explaining why. Does the treaty defeat the section 172 levy, and what does the Board say?
  On the India-UAE treaty, yes. The Gujarat High Court held that where the owner of the ship is admittedly a resident of the UAE, Article 8 of the India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement leaves no scope for taxing the income of the ship at any Indian port, because the agreement between the two countries has ousted the jurisdiction of the Indian taxing officers to tax profits derived by the enterprise. The Court reached that conclusion on Article 8 read with two Board circulars which it described but which are not reproduced in the judgment and which I did not read in their own words: Circular No. 333 dated 2 February 1982, which the Court said states that the provisions made in a DTAA prevail over the general provisions of the Act, and Circular No. 732 dated 20 December 1995, which the Court said clarifies that where ships are owned by an enterprise of a country with which India has a treaty providing for taxation of shipping profits only in the country of residence, no tax is payable by such ships at Indian ports.
• Statutory position — section 172: the 7.5 per cent freight levy on a non-resident's ship, the master's return, the nine-month limit in s.172(4A), and the owner's election under s.172(7) CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  A foreign ship loaded our cargo at an Indian port and the Assessing Officer is demanding tax from the master before port clearance. What is the levy, what return has to be filed, is there any time limit on the officer, and can the owner ask instead to be assessed on his year's income?
  Section 172 is a self-contained levy that operates voyage by voyage: where a ship belonging to or chartered by a non-resident carries passengers, livestock, mail or goods shipped at a port in India, s.172(2) deems 7.5 per cent of the amount paid or payable for that carriage — whether paid in or out of India — to be income accruing in India, and s.172(4) makes the tax payable by the master of the ship at the rate applicable to a company that has not made the arrangements referred to in s.194. The master must furnish a return under s.172(3) before the ship's departure, though the officer may accept a return filed within thirty days of departure by an authorised person where satisfactory arrangements have been made; s.172(6) withholds port clearance until the tax is paid or arrangements made; s.172(4A) bars any assessment order under s.172(4) after nine months from the end of the financial year in which the s.172(3) return is furnished; and s.172(7) lets the owner or charterer claim, before the expiry of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the date of departure falls, that an assessment be made of his total income under the other provisions of the Act, in which case the s.172 payments are treated as a payment in advance of the tax.
• CBDT Circular No. 9/2001 dated 9 July 2001 — on a regular assessment under section 172(7) the non-resident is liable to interest under sections 234B and 234C and entitled to interest under section 244A; Circular No. 730 withdrawn CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  Our foreign shipping client elected under section 172(7) for a regular assessment and is now getting a refund. The Department says no interest is payable on it because of an old Board circular. Is that circular still good?
  It is not. Circular No. 9/2001 dated 9 July 2001 withdrew Circular No. 730 dated 14 December 1995 as "no longer legally tenable" in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in A.S. Glittre D/5 I/S Garonne v. CIT, and clarified that on a regular assessment under s.172(7) the non-resident assessee is liable to pay interest under sections 234B and 234C and is also entitled to receive interest under s.244A, as the case may be. Circular No. 730 had said the opposite: that an assessee exercising the s.172(7) option was neither liable to interest under ss.234B and 234C nor entitled to interest under s.244A.
• CBDT Circular No. 723 dated 19 September 1995 — where section 172 applies, sections 194C and 195 do not, and the shipping agent steps into the shoes of his non-resident principal CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  We pay ocean freight and demurrage to a foreign shipping line, usually through its Indian agent, and we do not deduct tax. The Assessing Officer is disallowing the whole payment under section 40(a)(i). Is there anything from the Board on this?
  Yes, and it is directly in point. Circular No. 723 dated 19 September 1995 states that s.172 is a self-contained code for the levy and recovery of tax, ship-wise and journey-wise, that its provisions apply notwithstanding anything contained in other provisions of the Act, and that "Therefore, in such cases, the provisions of sections 194C and 195 relating to tax deduction at source are not applicable." Paragraph 5 extends that to payments routed through agents: since the agent acts on behalf of the non-resident owner or charterer, he steps into the shoes of the principal, and accordingly s.172 applies and ss.194C and 195 do not.
• Statutory position — section 44B: the 7.5 per cent shipping presumption, and why clause (i) and clause (ii) of sub-section (2) are not symmetrical CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  We are a foreign shipping line assessed under section 44B. The Assessing Officer has included freight we collected abroad and also our demurrage. What actually goes into the "aggregate of the amounts" under section 44B(2), and does it matter where the money was received?
  It matters, but only for cargo shipped at a port OUTSIDE India. Section 44B(2) has two clauses and they are deliberately different: clause (i) takes in the amount paid or payable "whether in or out of India" on account of carriage of passengers, livestock, mail or goods shipped at any port IN India, so where the freight was collected is irrelevant for an Indian loading; clause (ii) takes in only the amount "received or deemed to be received in India" on account of carriage of goods shipped at any port OUTSIDE India, so for a foreign loading receipt in India is the condition of charge. The Explanation to sub-section (2) then provides that the amount referred to in either clause shall include amounts by way of demurrage charges or handling charges or any other amount of similar nature.
• Sesa Goa Ltd v JCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerOverruled
  The Tribunal disallowed my education cess. Does s.40(a)(ii) actually cover cess?
  The High Court said no — s.40(a)(ii) as enacted contains no reference to 'cess' and there is no scope to read one in, so education and secondary cess were deductible, and the claim could be entertained even though it was not made in the original return. The Supreme Court reversed that order.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.