JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by A. K. Menon J.-The present set of appeals involve common set of questions which have been proposed as substantial questions of law. For sake of convenience, we will take up facts in Appeal No. 1690 of 2013 which is lead case pertaining to assessment year 2001-02. facts, in brief, are as follows: assessee is foreign company engaged in shipping business and is tax resident of Denmark. firm by name and style M/s. A. P. Moller Maersk A/S was designated as managing owner of company as well as another Denmark resident shipping company by name Atieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg (ADS). M/s. A. P. Moller Maersk A/S was assessed to tax during assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04. Commissioner of Income-tax held that A. P. Moller Maersk A/S being managing owner, income from shipping business would be taxed in hands of two shipping companies referred to above. Pursuant to directions of Commissioner, Assessing Officer assessed income in hands of assessee which was allowed benefit of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Netherlands. It was observed that assessee had three agents working for them, viz., Maersk Logistics India Ltd. (MLIL), Maersk India P. Ltd. (MIPL) and Safmarine India (Pvt.) Ltd. (SIPL). These agents would book cargo and act as clearing agents for assessee. In order to help them in this business, assessee had procured and maintained global telecommunication facility called MaerskNet which is vertically integrated communication system. agents would incur pro rata costs for using said system and agents share of cost was, therefore, recovered from these three agents. According to assessee, it was merely system of cost sharing and, hence, payments received by assessee from MIPL, MLIL and SIPL were in nature of reimbursement of expenses. Assessing Officer did not accept this contention and held that amounts paid by these three agents to assessee is consideration/fees for technical services rendered by assessee and, accordingly, held them to be taxable in India under article 13(4) of DTAA and assessed tax at 20 per cent. under section 115A of Income-tax Act, 1961. In appeal, Commissioner of Income-tax also confirmed Assessing Officer's stand and dismissed assessee's appeal. This is how assessee approached Tribunal which allowed appeal of assessee following decisions of Madras High Court Skycell Communications Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 (Mad) and Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 139 (Delhi). Tribunal, in present case, had occasion to consider nature of costs incurred by assessee. In doing so, it observed that three agents were booking cargo and acting as clearing agents for assessee and were entitled to utilisation of MaerskNet facility which consisted of communication system connected to main frame and other computer services in each of countries of operation. These were all connected to what is known as MaerskNet Connecting Point (MCP) which were installed in each of premises. This communication network would enable agent concerned to access via MCP, following services: "Global customer service system (GCSS); Global schedule information system (GSIS); Global transportation systems such as customer information and cargo tracking (star track), transportation schedule and service guide; Maersk product catalogue (MEPC) Maersk shared knowledge system (MSKS) EDI data quality enhancement and electronic data Interchange; System for documentation (RKDS), equipment management, container control (RKEM), freight invoicing (RKFR/RKIN/MLIS), accounting and performance (RRIS) geography (GEO), statistics (RKMS) and tables (RKTS/RKST)" assessee submitted before Tribunal that without this system, it was not possible to conduct international shipping business efficiently and in having system set up, assessee had incurred costs. share of this cost would have to be borne by each of agents which utilise system and, accordingly, these pro rata costs relatable to each of agents was billed to agents and these amounts were thus paid. It was merely "charging back" to agent, proportionate costs of global shipping communications system and did not, in any manner, amount to rendering of any technical services. Mr. Kaka, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of assessee, pointed out that but for system, it would not be possible to efficiently carry out business of shipping cargo and that each of these agents would be in position to effectively communicate with assessee and other relatable companies in group so as to efficiently carry out shipping business on global scale especially since consignments would be sourced from and dispatched to different locations. No technical service was thus rendered by assessee. It is merely automated system using advanced technology and there was no human element involved in terms of "rendering of services" which would be requirement of article 13(4). Mr. Kaka further submitted that facility known as MaerskNet was located in Denmark where assessee was tax resident and system was very much part of integral part of shipping business and, therefore, income received by assessee from agents did in fact, amount to income from shipping business of assessee and, therefore, not chargeable to tax in India. Mr. Tejveer Singh, on other hand, submitted that agents were using devices provided by assessee which would amount to assessee rendering technical services, consideration for which would be correctly termed as "fees for technical services" and, therefore, same was liable to be taxed in India. In this behalf, there is no finding by Assessing Officer or Commissioner that there was any profit element involved in payments received by assessee from its Indian agents. On other hand, having considered various submissions, we are of view that no technical services as contemplated by Act have been rendered in instant case. In case of Director of I. T. (International Taxation) v. Safmarine Container Lines NV [2014] 367 ITR 209 (Bom), this court had occasion to consider effect of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Belgium in which questions involved were whether income from inland transport of cargo within India was covered by article 8(2)(b)(ii) of Tax Treaty between India and Belgium. This court, while considering said issue, found that assessee was not liable to tax by virtue of DTAA in that case. Moreover, in present case, there was no occasion for Tribunal to come to any different view. In our view, Tribunal has correctly observed that utilisation of Maersk Net Communication system was automated software based communication system which did not require assessee to render any technical services. It was merely cost sharing arrangement between assessee and its agents to efficiently conduct its shipping business. In case of Safmarine Container Lines NV (supra), assessee is shipping company was charging freight for picking up goods from places within India and delivering them at destination port. This collection of inland haulage charges which customers would pay was in respect of transportation charges of goods from inland container depots to port where goods will be loaded on to ships for international destination. Assessing Officer in that case held that inland haulage charges were not within purview of section 44B of Act and, therefore, were chargeable to tax under provisions of Act. Commissioner (Appeals) held that inland haulage charges earned by assessee were only part of income derived from operation of ships and, therefore, were covered under article 8 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between India and Belgium and, therefore, not taxable as business profits in India. Tribunal in meanwhile had also decided (in case assessee's own case) for previous assessment year in favour of assessee and, therefore, upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals). This court, vide order dated July 17, 2014, to which one of us (S. C. Dharmadhikari court, vide order dated July 17, 2014, to which one of us (S. C. Dharmadhikari J.) Director of I. T. (International Taxation) v. Safmarine Container Lines NV [2014] 367 ITR 209 (Bom) was party held that inland transport of cargo within India was covered under article 8(2)(b)(ii) and (c) of DTAA between India and Belgium and, therefore, not liable to tax in India. principles involved in said decision also govern present case. MaerskNet used by agents of assessee entailed certain costs reimbursement to assessee. It was part of shipping business and could not be captured under any other provisions of Income-tax Act except under DTAA. Our attention is also drawn to decision of this court in case of CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft reported in [2009] 310 ITR 320 (Bom), wherein this court has held that once there is treaty between two sovereign nations though it is open to sovereign Legislature to amend its laws, DTAA entered into by Government, in exercise of powers conferred by section 90(1) of Act, must be honoured. provisions of section 9 of Income-tax Act were applicable and provisions of DTAA, if more beneficial than Income- tax Act provisions of DTAA would prevail. Thus, in instant case also, it is not possible for Revenue to unilaterally decide contrary to provisions of DTAA. We are informed that agreements inter parties had been performed and payments were made by agents to use MaerskNet for Maersk group's global shipping business and for no other reason. It related to shipment of cargo and their movement across oceans. views of Revenue that it amounted to technical service is misconceived. In fact, Assessing Officer relied upon decision of Arthur Anderson and Co. in I. T. A. No. 9125/Mum/1995, Mumbai, "D" Bench in which Tribunal had observed that repayment of money may be construed as "reimbursement" only if it is bereft of profits for services rendered. There is no profit element in pro rata costs paid by agents of assessee to assessee and, accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that amounts paid by agents to utilise amount arose out of shipping business cannot be brought to tax as sought to be done. In view of above discussion, we are of view that there are no substantial questions of law that arise in present case. appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. *** Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. A. P. Moller Maersk A/S