Comprehensive Analysis of

Taxation of Fees for Technical

Services

Presented by CA Avinash Gupta

Assisted by CA Rishabh Agarwal
 Section 9 of The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 9(1)(vii): Fees for Technical Services Income
The following Income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in
India:
Income by way of fees for technical services payable by—

(a) the Government ; or

(b) a person who is a resident, except where the fees is

payable in respect of services utilised for the purposes of
a business or profession carried on by such person outside
India or for the purposes of making or earning any income
from any source outside India ; or

(c) a person who is a non-resident, where the fees is payable

in respect of services utilised for the purposes of a
business or profession carried on by such person in India
or for the purposes of making or earning any income from
any source in India :
 Exception in sub-clause(b) of section 9(1)(vii) -
Source of Income outside India
• CIT v. Havells India Ltd. (352 ITR 376)(Delhi)
The High Court held that the real question is whether the export sales proceeds
received from goods manufacture and exported from India constitute a source
inside or outside India. To decide the same we have to take pragmatic and a
practical view and not approach the question from a theoretical perspective. We are
making a distinction between the source of the income and the source of receipt of
the monies. In order to fall within the second exception provided in section
9(1)(vii)(b) [similar to section 9(1)(vi)(b)] of the Act, the source of the income and
not the receipt should be situated outside India.

• Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt Ltd. V. DCIT (92 TTJ 837) (Delhi-ITAT)
The payments for repair of aircrafts abroad which were acquired for operating on
international routes only was held to fall under the exclusion clause of
9(1)(vii)(b)[similar to 9(1)(vi)(b)]
 Exception in sub-clause(b) of section 9(1)(vii) -
Source of Income outside India

• Titan Industries Ltd. V. ITO (11 SOT 206)( Bangalore-ITAT)

The ITAT held that the assessee company which was engaged in manufacture and
sale of watches under the patent name ‘TITAN’ having an associate company
incorporated in Singapore for promoting sales of watches in APAC region and got its
patent registered in Hong Kong could claim the exception clause u/s 9(1)(vii)(b) for
the fees paid to register the patent
 Section 9 of The Income Tax Act, 1961
• Section 9(1)(vii): Fees for Technical Services Income
Fees for technical services Income shall be deemed to accrue or arise
in India if:

PAYER CONDITIONS

Indian Government No conditions

All cases, Except where the fees is payable in

respect of services utilised for the purposes of a
Resident in India business or profession carried on by such person
outside India or for the purposes of making or
earning any income from any source outside India

Only where the fees is payable in respect of services

Non-Resident in utilised for the purposes of a business or profession
carried on by such person in India or for the
India purposes of making or earning any income from any
source in India
 Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii)
“Fees for Technical Services" means any consideration (including any
lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any

 managerial

 technical or

 consultancy services

(including the provision of services of technical or other personnel)

but does not include consideration for any

 construction

 assembly

 mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or

 consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under

the head "Salaries”

 FTS Provisions-Model Tax Conventions
Article 12A(1)- Resident Taxation Clause
OECD UN MODEL US
MODEL MODEL
1. No Article 1. Fees for technical services arising in a 1. No
of FTS Contracting to a resident of the other Article
Contracting State may be taxed in that other of FTS
State.
2. However, notwithstanding the provisions of
Article 14 and subject to the provisions of
Articles 8, 16 and 17 Fees for technical services
arising in a contracting state may also be taxed
in the Contracting State in which they arise
according to the laws of that State, but if the
beneficial owner of the fees is a resident of the
other Contracting State, the tax so charged
shall not exceed ___ per cent of the gross
amount of the fees. The competent authorities
of the Contracting States shall by mutual
agreement settle the mode of application of this
limitation
 FTS Provisions-Model Tax Conventions
Article 12A(3)- Fees for Technical Service Definition Clause

OECD MODEL UN MODEL US MODEL

No Article of FTS 3.The term “Fees for Technical No Article of FTS
Service” as used in this Article
means any payment in
consideration for any service of a
managerial, technical or
consultancy nature, unless the
payment is made:

(a)to an employee of the person

making the payment;
(b)for teaching in an educational
institution or for teaching by an
educational institution; or
(c)by an individual for services for the
personal use of an individual.
 Definition of Technical, Managerial &
Consultancy services

• [2012] 26 taxmann.com 267 (Bom) Zuari Agro Chemicals

Ltd. V. CIT
‘Technical services’ is a composite phrase involving several
activities, including rendering advice and suggestions as well as
undertaking the actual physical tasks. Rendering technical
services may involve one or more or all such activities. Each
case must be considered on its facts to ascertain whether the real
purpose was the rendition of technical services. However,
technical services in most cases at least would be rendered
only by the input of technical personnel. Without them,
there would be no start to rendering technical services.
 Definition of Technical, Managerial &
Consultancy services

• [2015] 378 ITR 205 (Delhi) CIT v. Grup Ism (P) Ltd.
‘Consultancy services’ would mean something akin to
advisory services provided by the non-resident, pursuant to
deliberation between parties. Ordinarily, it would not involve
instances where the non-resident is acting as a link between
the resident and another party, facilitating the transaction
between them, or where the non-resident is directly soliciting
business for the resident and generating income out of such
solicitation.
 Definition of Technical, Managerial &
Consultancy services
• [2013] 21 ITR(T) 697 (Delhi-ITAT) Adidas Sourcing Ltd. V. ADIT(IT)
The term ‘managerial’, ‘technical’, ‘consultancy’ do not find a definition in the
Income Tax Act,1961 an it is a settled law that they need to be interpreted
based on their understanding in common parlance. The Delhi High Court I the
case of JK (Bombay) Ltd. V. CBDT [1979] 118 ITR 312 referred to an article on
‘management sciences’ in encyclopaedia 747, wherein it is stated that the
management in organisations includes at least the following:
(a)Discovering, developing, defining and evaluating the goals of the
organisation and the alternative policies that will lead towards the goals. (b)
getting the organisation to adopt the policies. (c) scrutinizing the effectiveness
of the policies that are adopted and (d) initiating steps to change policies
when they are judged to be less effective than they ought to be management
thus prevades all organisations.
In the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. V. DCIT [2001] 251 ITR 53 the
High Court has held that the popular meaning associated with the word
‘Technical’ is ‘Involving or concerning applied and industrial sciences’.
Consultancy is generally understood to mean an advisory services. Further, it
may be fair to state that not all kind of advisory could qualify as technical
services. For any consultancy to be treated as a technical services, it would be
necessary that a technical element is involved in such advisory. Thus, the
consultancy should be rendered by someone who has special skills and
expertise in rendering such advisory.
 Definition of Technical, Managerial &
Consultancy services
• [2015] 371 ITR 453 (SC) GVK Industries Ltd. V. ITO
The expression, managerial, technical or consultancy service,
are to be appreciated. The said expressions have not been defined in
the Act, and, therefore, it is obligatory to examine how the said
expression are use and understood by the person engaged in
business. The general and common usage of the said words
has to be understood at common parlance.
As the factual matrix in the case at hand would exposit that the Non-
resident has acted as a consultant. It had the skill, acumen and
knowledge in the specialized field i.e. Preparation of a scheme for
required finances and to tie-up required loans. The nature of services
rendered by the non resident, can be said with certainty would come
within the ambit and sweep of the term ‘consultancy services’ and,
therefore, it has been rightly held that the tax at source should have
been deducted as the amount paid as fee could be taxable under the
head ‘fee for technical services’
 Deviation from UN Model Convention
• Germany (Article 12)

The term "fees for technical services" as used in this Article means payments
of any amount in consideration for the services of managerial, technical or
consultancy nature, including the provision of services by technical or
other personnel, but does not include payments for services mentioned
in Article 15 of this Agreement.

• UAE

No specific article for FTS, it is to be treated as business profits.

 Deviation from UN Model Convention
Netherlands (Article 12)
For purposes of this Article, "fees for technical services" means payments of any kind
to any person in consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical or
consultancy services (including through the provision of services of
technical or other personnel) if such services :

(a) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property
or information for which a payment described in paragraph 4 of this Article is
received; or

(b) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes, or

consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design.
 Deviation from UN Model Convention
Netherlands (Article 12)

6. Notwithstanding paragraph 5, "fees for technical services" does not

include amounts paid :
(a) for services that are ancillary and subsidiary, as well as inextricably and
essentially linked, to the sale of property;

(b) for services that are ancillary and subsidiary to the rental of ships, aircraft,
containers or other equipment used in connection with the operation of ships or
aircraft in international traffic;

(c) for teaching in or by educational institutions;

(d) for services for the personal use of the individual or individuals, making the
payment; or

(e) to an employee of the person making the payments or to any individual or

partnership for professional services as defined in Article 14 (Independent
Personal Services) of this Convention.
 Deviation from UN Model Convention
USA
For purposes of this Article, "fees for included services" means
payments of any kind to any person in consideration for the
rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy
services (including through the provision of services of
technical or other personnel) if such services :

(a) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the

right, property or information for which a payment described in
paragraph 3 is received ; or

(b) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how,

or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a
technical plan or technical design.
 Deviation from UN Model Convention
USA

5. Notwithstanding paragraph 4, "fees for included services" does not

include amounts paid :
(a) for services that are ancillary and subsidiary, as well as inextricably and
essentially linked, to the sale of property other than a sale described in
paragraph 3(a) ;

(b) for services that are ancillary and subsidiary to the rental of ships, aircraft,
containers or other equipment used in connection with the operation of
ships or aircraft in international traffic ;

(c) for teaching in or by educational institutions ;

(d) for services for the personal use of the individual or individuals making the
payments ; or

(e) to an employee of the person making the payments or to any individual or

firm of individuals (other than a company) for professional services as
defined in Article 15 (Independent Personal Services).
 Deviation from UN Model Convention
Singapore (Article 12)
The term "fees for technical services" as used in this Article means payments of any
kind to any person in consideration for services of a managerial, technical or
consultancy nature (including the provision of such services through technical
or other personnel) if such services :
(a) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property
or information for which a payment described in paragraph 3 is received ; or

(b) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes,

which enables the person acquiring the services to apply the technology
contained therein ; or

(c) consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design,
but excludes any service that does not enable the person acquiring the service to
apply the technology contained therein.

For the purposes of (b) and (c) above, the person acquiring the service shall be
deemed to include an agent, nominee, or transferee of such person.
 Deviation from UN Model Convention
Singapore (Article 12)

5. Notwithstanding paragraph 4, "fees for technical services" does not

include payments :
(a) for services that are ancillary and subsidiary, as well as inextricably and
essentially linked, to the sale of property other than a sale described in
paragraph 3(a) ;
(b) for services that are ancillary and subsidiary to the rental of ships, aircraft,
containers or other equipment used in connection with the operation of ships or
aircraft in international traffic ;
(c) for teaching in or by educational institutions ;
(d) for services for the personal use of the individual or individuals making the
payment;
(e) to an employee of the person making the payments or to any individual or firm
of individuals (other than a company) for professional services as defined in
Article 14 ;
(f) for services rendered in connection with an installation or structure used for the
exploration or exploitation of natural resources referred to in paragraph 2(j) of
Article 5 ;
(g) for services referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 5.
 Taxability of Educational Service

• [2016] 387 ITR 385(AAR - New Delhi)

• UC Berkeley Center for Executive Education, USA, In re.

The applicant received payments from an Indian Co. for providing

programmes for business executives which in turn were provided
to the end users by the Indian Co.
The incomes do fall in the ambit of 'fees for technical services' u/s
9(1)(vii) however as per Article 12(5)(c) of the India-USA DTAA
there is a special exemption for services provided by educational
institute.
Hence, the incomes of the application are not liable to tax in India
and the provisions of TDS u/s 195 are not attracted.
 Taxability of Educational Service
• [2016] 387 ITR 398(AAR- New Delhi)
• Regents of the University of California UCLA Anderson
School of Management Executive Education, USA, In re.

The applicant is a US based non-profit public benefit corporation

formed for the purposes of providing education it entered into an
agreement with an Indian Co. to launch a management
programme for senior executives in India.
The programme fees received by the applicant from the Indian
Co. fall in the exemption provided in the Article 12(5)(C) of the
India-USA DTAA.
Hence, these incomes are not liable to tax in India as 'fees for
technical services' and no tax needs to be deducted.
 Taxability of Educational Service

• [2013] 262 CTR 113(AAR-New Delhi)

• Eruditus Education (P.) Ltd., In re.
The applicant is an Indian company engaged in the business of providing
high quality executive education programmes to Indian corporate and
other participants.
It entered into a Programme Partnership Agreement (PPA) with INSEAD, a
Singaporean company which is in the business of providing various
management education programmes globally.
It is true that the payment for the services falls under the broad definition
of 'Fees for Technical Services' both under the Indian Income-tax
Act and under the India-Singapore DTAA. However, the case of the
applicant will fall in the exclusive clause of Article 12(5)(c) of the DTAA.
There is no dispute that INSEAD is an educational institute.
Hence, income of INSEAD was not liable to tax in India & the provisions of
TDS u/s 195 are not attracted.
 Taxability of Testing Charges
[2013] 22 ITR 224(Delhi-ITAT)
Romer Labs Singapore Pte. Ltd. vs. ADIT (IT).
The assessee is a Singapore Co. provided testing services of dog food and
other related items to its Indian customers. The payments do not fall in the
definition of 'fees for technical services' as per Article 12(4) of the India-
Singapore DTAA as no technology or technical plan & design has been
'made available' by the assessee to its Indian customer. Such receipts are
business profits and not taxable in India.

[2013] 152 TTJ 689(Mumbai-ITAT)

Siemens Limited vs. CIT(A)
The assessee Co. made payments to a foreign laboratory for testing of circuit
breakers, so to match them with international standards. The services were
performed without any human intervention. The ITAT held that human
intervention is important for rendering technical services and such
payments do not fall in the ambit of 'fees for technical services' and no tax
needs to be deducted by the assessee.
 Taxability of Testing Charges
• [2019] 108 taxmann.com 417 (Mum.-ITAT)
• EOS Power India (P) Ltd vs. DCIT
The assessee is an Indian tax resident engaged in the business of
manufacturing switch mode power supplies and other computer peripherals.
The products of the assessee were mainly exported to the USA and the
Europe. As per the US and European regulations it was required that the
products meet the quality standards for which the assessee obtained testing
and certification services from authorized agencies in US. The certification
agencies did not have any PE in India. Testing and certification services do
not involve any transfer of technical knowledge or skill that can be
independently used by the service recipient in the future. Further, the
services were provided outside India and as the certification agencies did
not have a PE in India no income could be attributed to accruing or arising in
India. The Hon’ble ITAT held that testing and certification services were not in
nature of fees for technical services and hence not taxable in India due to
absence of a PE
 Taxability of Testing Charges
• [1996] 222 ITR 354 (Kerala HC)
• Cochin Refineries Ltd. vs. CIT
Cochin Refineries Ltd. requested Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation
to evaluate whether coke produced from a blend of vacuum bottoms
and clarified oil from Bombay High crude is suitable for making anode
for aluminium industry. The tests were carried out in USA. The total
payment made for these tests included two payments which were in
the nature of reimbursement of the payments made to the personnel
of Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation.
The Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of the ITAT whereby the
ITAT concluded that in respect payment made towards
reimbursement of employees of the consultant that they were
inextricably linked to the process of advice rendered by the
consultant and was technical in character.
Hence, the payment made towards reimbursement was towards
technical services as per explanation to section 9(1)(vii).
 Taxability of Market Study
• [2015] 378 ITR 0465 (AAR)
• Guangzhou Usha International Ltd., IN RE vs. IN RE.
The applicant company was registered in china and was a wholly
owned subsidiary of an Indian company. It was providing,
import/export services and also to provide services relating to
business of household electrical appliances and equipments,
household goods and accessories(mainly: New suppliers
development, New Products development, Market research), to Indian
company. All these services were performed in China. As per Article
12(4) of the India-China DTAA fees or technical service includes the "
provision of services of technical nature". The AAR held that the
term 'provision of services' will cover the services even when
these are not rendered in the other contracting state (India)
as long as these services are used in the other contracting
state (India). Hence, the payment made are fees for technical
services and tax needs to be deducted.
 Taxability of Market Study
• [2018] 30 CCH 0731(Bang-ITAT) Crane Software International Ltd. vs.
DCIT.
The assessee Co. Made payments to a German Co. for rendering market
support for positioning software products and branding those products for
assessee in European market. The payments were in the nature of 'fees for
technical services', the German Co. didn't have PE in India, payment for
such services were made outside India & the services were also
rendered outside India. Hence, the income was generated outside
India in hands of the German Co. and not taxable in India.

The assessee Co. had entered into an agreement with, Wallingford (tax
resident of UK) for morphological studies, sedimentation assessment,
navigation and mooring assessment. The payments were made to receive
reports on the existing conditions. As per Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA
such payments do not fall in the ambit of 'fees for technical services' as no
technical knowledge is being 'made available' to the assessee. Hence,
the provisions of sec 195 are not attracted
 Taxability of Finance Markets Charges
• [2016] 383 ITR 0001 (SC) CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the transaction charges
paid to the BSE or NSE are not in nature of "fees for Technical Services",
they are in nature of payments for facilities provided by the stock exchange.
Further the transaction in question fails to satisfy the test of specialized,
exclusive and individual requirement of the user
The 2nd issue relates to the payments made for the BSE Online Trading
(BOLT) System provided by the BSE to its members. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court was of the view that these are the charges that all the members of
the stock exchange have to pay in order to trade through BSE, there is no
exclusivity to the services rendered by the Stock Exchange and each and
every member has to necessarily avail such services in the normal course of
trading in securities in the Stock Exchange.
 Taxability of Arranger Fees

• [2013] 96 DTR 261(Mumbai-ITAT) Credit Lyonnais vs. ADIT (IT).

The assessee was acting as an arranger in the IMD programme of SBI, it was
responsible for mobilizing deposits from eligible depositors & it was
paid on commission basis on the amounts mobilized by it. The assessee
further appointed a NR sub-arranger to solicit customers for the IMD, the
amounts paid to sub-arranger were in the nature of
commission/brokerage/incentives and not `Fees for technical services’
(FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii). The assessee was under no obligation to deduct tax at
source from the payments made to sub-arranger, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(i).

• [2015] 41 ITR 338(Mumbai-ITAT) Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. ACIT (IT). T

The assessee Co. Paid 'arranger fees' to HSBC, Hong Kong for acting as an
arranger in the process of raising finance from Finnish Export Credit Ltd.
The ITAT held that such fees cannot be constituted as 'interest' u/s 2(28A) and
also not as 'fees for technical services' as services by HSBC are not in
nature of managerial or consultancy and there was no element of
advice or counselling. Hence, such income is not taxable in India and no tax
needs to be deducted.
 Taxability of Derivative Consultancy

• [2012] 148 TTJ 382(KOL-ITAT) DCIT vs. Andaman Sea Food Pvt. Ltd.
The assessee Co. engaged the services of GMPL a Singapore based CO. GMPL
rendered consultancy regarding the forex derivatives and received
commission for the same. As per Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA the
payments made are not covered in the scope of 'fees for technical services' as
no technology or technical plan/design has been 'made available' to
the assessee. Such payments are business profits as per Article 7 of the
DTAA & in the absence of PE in India are taxable only in Singapore.
 Taxability on Intra-group Services

• [2019] 198 TTJ 0130(Del-ITAT) DCIT vs. Adidas Sourcing Ltd.

The assessee Co. a resident of Hong Kong rendered buying agency services
to its related Co. AIMPL & other unrelated parties. The ITAT held that the
consideration received for such services do not fall in the ambit of 'fees for
technical services' as per section 9(1)(vii) as there is no technical or
managerial element involved and hence, such income of assessee is not
liable to tax India.

• [2013] 214 TAXMAN 0317 (Bombay) DIT(IT) vs. WNS Global Services
(UK) Ltd.
The assessee company was a resident of UK, it received a payment for
marketing and management services to be rendered outside India
from WNS India. The Hon'ble HC upheld the decision of ITAT that such receipt
does not relates to the PE in India and does not fall in the ambit of 'fees
for technical service'. Hence, it cannot be subject to tax in India.
 Taxability on Intra-group Services

• [2018] 196 TTJ 0594(Mumbai-ITAT) Endemol South Africa

(Proprietary) Ltd. vs. DCIT (IT).
The assessee rendered Line Production Services in South Africa to its
group concern Endemol India, as per the agreement the purview of services
included arranging for location crew, producer, transportation, paper
work for various stunts to be performed, etc. The ITAT held that as per
Article 12 of the India-South Africa DTAA the services rendered by the
assessee are purely administrative in nature and cannot brought within
the sweep of 'fees for technical service'. Hence, such receipts of assessee
are not liable to tax in India.
 Taxability on Intra-group Services (MFN)

• [2015] 70 SOT 551(Pune-ITAT) Sandvik AB vs. DDIT (IT).

The assessee a tax resident of Sweden received 'Management Service Fee'
from Indian AEs for direction or guidance relating to business strategy
and its group policies. As per Article 12 of the India-Sweden DTAA
'managerial services' fall in the sweep of 'fees for technical services'.
However in the Protocol of the DTAA there is a clause based on the principle
of 'Most Favoured Nation' which allows to take benefit from the DTAA
between India & any other OECD nation. Hence, ITAT held that as per
the Article 12 of the India-Portugal DTAA 'managerial services' do not
fall in the sweep of 'fees for technical services' and such benefit will also be
available to the assessee in view of the MFN clause in the Protocol and
such receipts are not taxable in India.
 Taxability of Consultancy Services rendered
outside India
• [2015] 378 ITR 205 (Delhi) CIT vs. Grup Ism P. Ltd.
The assessee company made payments to two UAE based companies (CGS &
Marble) for services received. As regards to 'Marble', the services included
identification and selection of UAE national as a partner for the
assessee in connection with supply of marble & as regards to 'CGS', the
services included soliciting business for the assessee in various parts of
the world except India, identifying, introducing and providing details of
industries, companies, individuals and investors.
The above payments made does not come within the purview of 'fees for
technical service' as defined under explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii).
Moreover, the said services are also outside the purview of Article 14
(Independent Personal Services) or 22 (Other Income) of the India-UAE DTAA.
Hence, no tax to be deducted.
 Taxability of Consultancy Services rendered
outside India
• [2016] 177 TTJ 0708(Mumbai-ITAT) KPMG vs. ACIT.
The assessee had made payments for professional services to entities in
USA and UK. As per Article 12/13 respectively of India-USA & India-UK DTAA,
while providing such professional services no technical knowledge,
experience, skill, know-how or process was 'made available'. Such
payments do not fall in the ambit of 'fees for technical services' and due to
absence on PE in India such receipts cannot be taxed as 'business
profits' also. Hence such income was not taxable in India and no requirement
to deduct tax by the assessee.
 Taxability of General Services
• [2020] 119 taxmann.com 398 (Delhi-ITAT) Sabic Innovative Plastics US,
LLC vs. DDIT
Assessee, a US company received payment from its Indian AE in respect of
management services provided by it to the AE. The main issue here was to
determine whether management services be considered as FTS/ FIS. The
services provided by the assessee were in the nature of finance, legal, EHS, quality
review, HR services. Also, the category ‘management services’ is missing
from the definition of FIS as per the India-USA DTAA. Further, the make
available condition was also not satisfied. Hence the Hon’ble ITAT held that these
management services do not constitute to be FTA/FIS.
 Taxability of General Services
• [2019] 109 taxmann.com 264 (Mum.-ITAT) Nielsen Company vs. DCIT
Assessee was a tax resident of USA and had AE in India. During the year assessee
had received consideration from the Indian AE for providing services under a
General Service Agreement (GSA) . The services were in nature of development and
determination of business strategy, management, HR related , legal, IT support and
other like services. All the services referred to in the GSA were such which
did not require any transfer of technology or skill to the recipient company.
The concept of ‘make available’ elaborated to mean that services provided
should aim at transferring knowledge and skill so that the recipient of
service can obtain enduring benefits by utilizing such knowledge and skill
on its own in future without the aid from the service provider. The Hon’ble ITAT
held that the services provided under the GSA could not be considered as FIS
 Taxability of Inspection/Survey Charges
• [2012] 346 ITR 0467(Karnataka) CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P.)
Ltd.
The assessee company entered into a contract with M/s Fugro Elbocon B.V. a
resident of Netherlands, the latter was to carry out a geographical survey
which includes providing high quality, high resolution & geophysical data
suitable for selecting probable kimberlite targets. Furgo have given the data,
photographs and maps, but they have not made available technical
expertise, skill or knowledge in respect of such collection or
processing of data to the assessee. Services provided by Furgo fall in the
ambit of 'fees for technical services' as per explanation 2 of Sec. 9(1)(vii) of
the Act, however as per the article 12 of the India-Netherland DTAA it
does not 'make available' the technical expertise and hence it does not
qualify to be 'fees for technical services'. The liability to tax is not attracted.
 Taxability of Inspection/Survey Charges
• [2019] 179 ITD 388(Indore-ITAT) M/S. Hind Energy & Coal
Benefication (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (IT&TP).
The assessee Co. Availed the inspection services from its AE on the
Indonesia port at the time of shipment of coal. The inspection report was to
be provided to shipping agent at the time of shipment, the services were
not in the nature of 'fees for technical services' but were charges for
inspecting the vessel. Moreover, such services were rendered outside
India. The provisions of TDS u/s 195 are not attracted in this case.
 Taxability of Inspection/Survey Charges
• [2018] 92 taxmann.com 407 (Del hi-ITAT) ACIT vs. Petronet
Assesee is an Indian tax resident, made payments to USA enterprises for
rendering services in connection with review of the alternative vaporization
process for the LNG terminal and recommend a suitable process to the
assessee. The scope involved study of the benefits of the various schemes for
generating power through the utilization of LNG. The main issue here was
to determine whether payment for rendering of service involving
technical knowledge will be considered as FIS/FTS.
The India- USA treaty provides for a restrictive meaning of fee for included
services vis-a-vis the meaning of fee for technical services as per the Act. The
India-US ADTAA read with the MOU to the treaty clarifies that technology
will be considered to be 'made available' when the person acquiring
the service is able to apply such technology on his own. However, with
the scope of services provided to the assessee it was not possible for the
assessee to carry out such activities on its own without a recourse to
the service provider. The Hon’ble ITAT held that as no technology, skill etc
was transferred to the assessee, the payment did not qualify to be ‘fees for
included services’
 Taxability of Reimbursement of Expenses
• [2019]108 taxmann.com 473 (Delhi-ITAT) H.J Heinz Company vs.
ADIT
Assessee is a US company and had an independent subsidiary in India. During
the year under appeal the US Co. had allocated cost without any mark-up
to its Indian subsidiary which were reimbursed by the Indian Co. Nature of
activities, the cost of which were allocated by the US co. were, HR, strategic
planning and marketing, finance and information systems. The underlying
objective of the agreement entered into by the US company with its Indian
affiliate was to achieve consistency of approach and economies of scale.
As per the make available criteria of Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA, to
qualify as ‘fees for included services’ the fruits of the service should remain
available to the service recipient in some concrete shape such as technical
knowledge, experience, skill etc. The Hon’ble ITAT held that as the benefit of
the services provided by the assessee remained with the Indian
affiliate and the same was treated as “fees of included services’.
 Taxability of Reimbursement of Expenses
• [2018] 92 taxmann.com 225 (Chennai-ITAT) Hospira Healthcare India
(P) Ltd vs. DCIT
The assessee is an Indian tax resident engaged in the business of
manufacturing, research and development of pharmaceutical drugs. It made
payments to a US enterprise for providing support for design and construction
management for installation of production lines in its new manufacturing unit.
Further, the US enterprise raised bills for reimbursement of expenditure
relating to the expenses incurred by its employees towards room rent, air fare,
car rentals etc while providing the above services to the assessee. Separate
bills were raised for the technical service and the reimbursement of
expenses, so the reimbursement cannot take the character of income
chargeable to tax. The Hon’ble ITAT held that reimbursement of expenses
could not be treated at par with fees for included services and therefore, no
tax could be deducted from such payments
 Taxability of Reimbursement of Expenses
• [2017] 88 taxmann.com 21 (Kolkata trib.) ADIT (IT) vs. Timken
Company
The assessee is a US tax resident and had an Indian subsidiary company. It
had paid for certain expenses in nature of legal expenses, inspection and
survey expenses, lodging and car rental expenses etc incurred by the
subsidiary company’s employees while in the USA. These expenses were
later reimbursed by the subsidiary company without any mark-up on
the bills raised by the third parties. The payments received by the
assessee were purely in the nature of reimbursement of expenses and it
was also not the ultimate beneficiary of the sums incurred nor did the
assessee render any services to the Indian subsidiary. The payments cannot
fall in the scope of fees for technical services/fees for included
services. The Hon’ble ITAT held that the payments were in the nature of
reimbursement and not that of fees for included services and hence, are not
chargeable to tax in India.
 Taxability of Management and Consultancy
services
• [2018] 97 taxmann.com 642 (Kerala HC) US Technology Resources
(P) Ltd. vs. CIT
The assessee being an Indian tax resident availed management, financial
and legal, public relations, treasury and risk management advice
services from a US enterprise. The scope of services fall in the definition
of ‘technical and consultancy’ services under the explanation 2 to the
section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. However, as per the Article 12 (4) of the India-
USA DTAA read with the MOU that was entered as a part of the DTAA explains
that for the purpose of clause 4(b) of Article 12, the expression ‘make
available’ means when the technology enables the recipient of service
to use it independently. The mere fact that the provision of a service may
require technical input by the service provider does not per se mean that the
technical knowledge, skills, etc. are made available to the person availing such
services. The Hon’ble High Court held that the payments made by the
assessee cannot be considered as fees for included services.
 Taxability of Management and Consultancy
services
• [2020] 115 taxmann.com 129 (Mum-ITAT) General Motors Overseas
Corporation vs. ACIT (IT)
Assessee was a US company engaged in providing management and
consultancy services. During the year under appeal it had deputed two
employees at an Indian company and the Indian company had reimbursed the
cost of such employees to the assessee. One of the employees deputed was
the VP-Manufacturing. The main issue here is that Could the amount
reimbursed in respect of salary of such employee be considered ‘fees for
included services’ in terms of Article 12 of the DTAA. The experience of an
expert lies in the mind of an expert and if an expert having knowledge and
expertise is transferred from one tax jurisdiction to the another tax
jurisdiction, then it cannot be said that only the employees were per se is
transferred and not the technology. Technology is made available by one entity
situated in one tax jurisdiction to another entity situated in another tax
Jurisdiction, through the transfer on deputation of its experienced/expert
technical employees. The Hon’ble ITAT held that the amount reimbursed in
respect of the salary of VP manufacturing was in nature of fees for included
services.
 Taxability of Recruitment Services
• [2016] 67 taxmann.com 225 (Mumbai-ITAT) ACIT vs. Lehman
Brothers & Advisors (P.) Ltd.
Assessee is an Indian tax resident, and it entered into agreement with the
foreign entities to undertake search process for recruiting employees on its
behalf and reimbursed expenses incurred by them. The expenses were
reimbursed at cost price without any mark-up. Services in nature of
recruitment and placement services do not come under the purview of the
term ‘fees for included services’. Also, reimbursement of expense made
without any mark up does not have any element of service embedded in it.
The Hon’ble ITAT held that recruitment and placement services could not be
taxed as ‘fees for included services’
 Taxability of Advertisement Services

• [2016] 73 taxmann.com 114 (AAR - New Delhi)Dr. Reddy Laboratories

Ltd., In re
The applicant is a pharmaceutical company. In order to promote its sales in
Russia and develop a local brand plan for same, it enters into a service
agreement with its subsidiary, i.e., DRL Russia, to avail of product
promotion services. In terms of agreement, DRL Russia has to render
marketing services related to promotion of goods from producers to end-
customer by way of meeting with medical and pharmaceutical experts,
participation in pharmaceutical circles and distribution of promotional
materials to medical and pharmaceuticals experts. It is noted that applicant
has not utilised services rendered by DRL Russia for brand promotion and,
thus, agreement cannot be considered for providing consultancy
services. Further, DRL Russia is not managing affairs of applicant in
Russia and thus agreement in question cannot be classified as managerial
services either. On facts of the case service fee payable by applicant to DRL
Russia under agreement for promotion of goods cannot be regarded as
fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) or under article 12
of India-Russia DTAA.
 Taxability of Advertisement Services
• [2012] 20 taxmann.com 335 (Jaipur-ITAT) ACIT vs. Modern Insulator
Ltd.
The assessee had made payments to non-residents in foreign currency on
account of 'sales commission', 'subscription', 'insulator testing',
'technical consultancy', 'advertising', etc. The Assessing Officer held that
all the payments were covered in section 9(1)(vii)( b). The Hon’ble ITAT
held that the sales commission was business profit of the non-resident. In
the absence of a permanent establishment, such sales commission was
not chargeable and, therefore, there was no need for deducting the tax at
source. Similarly, the payments in respect of subscription and advertisement
could not be considered to be covered under fees for technical services
and therefore, no TDS was required to deducted.
 Taxability of Air Traffic Services
• [2005] 143 TAXMAN 129 (AAR - N. DELHI) Airports Authority of India,
In re
Airports Authority of India entered into supply and service contracts with an
American company ‘RC’ for Modernisation of Air Traffic Services (MATS) in
Delhi and Mumbai. Pursuant to those contracts, ‘RC’ handed over equipment
software, etc., and applicant had been operating and maintaining equipments
on its own. However, since some assemblies subsequently failed, applicant felt
that same needed regular repairs. So, it entered into two separate contracts
with ‘RC’ for (a) repair of hardware equipment of MATS system, and (b)
modification and anomaly resolution of software of said system. The
contract showed that insofar as software and documentation were concerned,
applicant acquired a right to use same subject to certain conditions but
hardware and other equipment were subject-matter of outright sale in favour
of applicant. The payment received by ‘RC’ in respect of repair of
hardware, did not fall within meaning of income from rendering of
services as defined in article 12 of the India- USA DTAA.
 Taxability of Bio-Analytical Services
• [2017] 77 taxmann.com 309 (Ahd-ITAT) ITO(IT) V. Cadila Healthcare
Ltd.
The assessee company made payments for services in nature of bio – analysis
to non resident entities based in USA, Canada and UK. It was found that none
of these service ‘make available’ any technology to the service recipient.
The Hon’ble ITAT held that services provided by the non resident did not
involve any transfer of technology and it will not enable to use these services
in future without recourse to service providers. Thus, the payments made to
non resident would not be regarded as FTS/FIS.
• [2018] 98 taxmann.com 458 ( Delhi-ITAT) Ciena Communications
India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT
Assessee is an Indian tax resident engaged in the business of providing AMC ,
installation and maintenance services in respect of equipments manufactured
by its US tax resident AE’s. The assessee has entered into an agreement with
its US AE whereby technical on-call advisory services are obtained from
AE, in case of problems of outrage, emergency, technical support or system
compromised on the basis of priority of cases. As per the agreement the US
AE was to provide its services remotely and no on-site support services
were provided to the customers of the assessee. Also, no technical
knowledge or skill is transmitted to the assessee when remote on-call
services were provided directly to the customers of the assessee. The Hon’ble
ITAT held that as no technical knowledge, skill etc was ‘made available’ to the
assessee, the consideration paid to the US AE cannot be considered as fees for
included services.
• [2018] 96 taxmann.com 645 (Ahd.-ITAT) Seal for Life India (P) Ltd.
vs. DCIT
The Assessee company is a tax resident of India and had made various
payments to its US based AE on account of MIS Services Cost Allocation,
Corporate Allocation Charges and Legal Expenses. The ‘make available’ clause
as stipulated by Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA is not being satisfied as no
technology, know-how, skill have been transferred to the assessee in the said
transaction. The Hon’ble ITAT held that the same cannot be taxed as ‘fees for
included service
• [2019] 102 taxmann.com 256(Mum.-ITAT ACIT vs. Nathpa Jhakri
Joint Venture
The assessee is an Association of persons which is a project specific joint
venture between an Indian company and an Italian company. The assessee
had made payment to two US residents for making independent
testimonies during the course of arbitration between the assessee and its
AE. The services provided by the US residents was only in form of
providing testimony during the course of arbitration proceedings
which did not make available any technical skill, know-how etc to the
assessee. The Hon’’ble ITAT held that the services availed by the assessee
were not in form of ‘included services’ as defined in Article 12 of the India-USA
DTAA.
• [2016] 72 taxmann.com 238 (Pune Trib.) Gera Developments (P) Ltd.
vs. DCIT (IT)
Assessee is an Indian tax resident and engaged in the business of land
development and construction of buildings. It made a payment to a US
enterprise for examination of data pertaining to site development, project
goal, and providing designs and drawings. Designs, drawings, layouts of
buildings does not fall within the ambit of transfer of technical know-how or
technical designs. Mere passing of project specific architectural drawings &
designs with measurements does not amount to 'making available' technical
knowledge, know-how or process. The assessee cannot independently use the
drawings & designs in any manner whatsoever for commercial purpose. Since,
the drawings & designs were project specific, the assessee could not have
used these designs for any of its other projects. The Hon’ble ITAT held that the
payment is not in the nature of fees for technical services/ fees for included
services.
• [2016] 68 taxmann.com 133 (Mumbai-ITAT) Raytheon Ebasco
Overseas Ltd. vs. DCIT
Assessee is a US tax resident. It received a payment from an Indian entity
towards rendering services in nature of engineering, design work, overall
management and start-up in respect of a power plant. As per the contract
technical work consisted of providing engineering and design work relating to
the plant, providing specification regarding the material required, providing
suppliers quotations and reviewing documents etc. The technical services or
the start-up services provided by the assessee did not include any
construction, assembly, mining or like projects. Though some of the
employees of the assessee visited India, but there is no proof that there was
any transfer of technology or technical know-how to the service recipient. It is
possible that service providers may utilise their own technical knowledge in
providing the services but that in itself would not render the services being
treated as making them available to the service receiver. The Hon’ble ITAT
held that as no technical know-how or skill was in fact transferred to the
Indian service recipient, the services rendered by the assessee could not be
treated as FIS.
For any query Feel free to contact:

CA. Avinash Gupta

9810751999
[email protected]

CA. Rishabh Agarwal

9899980342
[email protected]