Treaty PE threshold and technical services characterisation shape tax treatment of supervision and know-how receipts.

Supervision charges for start-up and commissioning were treated as outside Indian tax where the supervisory presence in India stayed below the treaty threshold for a permanent establishment under the India-Germany DTAA. Receipts for engineering, documentation and technical know-how were held to remain taxable as fees for technical services, because the taxpayer could not produce evidence that they formed part of a composite contract incidental to plant and equipment supply. The note underscores that treaty-based PE thresholds control taxation of supervisory income, and that consistent prior treatment of technical receipts cannot be displaced without supporting contractual material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether supervision charges received for start-up and commissioning were taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment when the supervisory stay in India was less than six months. (ii) Whether receipts for supply of engineering and documentation and technical know-how were taxable as fees for technical services or as business profits in the absence of a permanent establishment.

Issue (i): Whether supervision charges received for start-up and commissioning were taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment when the supervisory stay in India was less than six months.

Analysis: Under Article 5(2)(i) of the DTAA between India and Germany, supervisory activity in connection with construction, installation or assembly projects is treated as income attributable to a permanent establishment only if such activity continues for more than six months. The admitted position was that the assessee's personnel stayed in India for less than 75 days in each project, so the treaty threshold for a permanent establishment was not met.

Conclusion: The supervision charges were not taxable in India, as no permanent establishment existed for that activity.

Issue (ii): Whether receipts for supply of engineering and documentation and technical know-how were taxable as fees for technical services or as business profits in the absence of a permanent establishment.

Analysis: The assessee had consistently treated these receipts as royalty or fees for technical services in earlier years and had paid tax accordingly. In the year under consideration, it sought to characterise them as business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA between India and Germany, but no agreement or other supporting material was produced to show that these supplies formed part of a composite contract incidental to plant and equipment supply. In the absence of such evidence, the earlier treatment could not be displaced.

Conclusion: The receipts for engineering and documentation and technical know-how remained taxable as fees for technical services and were not assessable as business profits.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to exclusion of supervision receipts failed, while the assessee's challenge to taxation of engineering, documentation and technical know-how receipts also failed, leaving the assessment undisturbed overall.

Ratio Decidendi: Supervision income is taxable in the source state only when the supervisory activity exceeds the treaty threshold for a permanent establishment, and a party cannot re-characterise consistently taxed technical service receipts as business profits without supporting evidence of a composite contract.

---