Treaty "make available" test limits taxation of advisory and training receipts; incidental branding use does not create royalty.

Advisory, consultancy, education and training receipts were held not to be fees for included services because they did not satisfy the treaty "make available" requirement, and incidental use of a name or logo did not convert the contracts into royalty. In the absence of a permanent establishment, the receipts from the Indian entities were therefore not taxable as business profits under the India-USA DTAA. Reimbursements of actual travel and lodging expenses were also not treated as taxable income on the facts found. As no underlying tax liability arose in India, the payer had no obligation to deduct tax at source.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amounts received from MAX India Ltd. were taxable as fees for included services or royalty, or were business profits not chargeable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment; (ii) Whether the amounts received from Wockhardt Hospital Ltd. were taxable as royalty or fees for included services, or were business profits not chargeable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment; (iii) Whether reimbursement of expenses received from Indian entities constituted taxable income; (iv) Whether tax was deductible at source under section 195(2) on the payments made to the non-resident.

Issue (i): Whether the amounts received from MAX India Ltd. were taxable as fees for included services or royalty, or were business profits not chargeable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.

Analysis: The services rendered to MAX were advisory and consultancy in nature and did not transfer technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes so as to satisfy the "make available" requirement under Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA. The receipt could not be split into royalty and fees for included services merely because the services were connected with healthcare strategy, planning and training. The payment was therefore not covered by Article 12 and, in the absence of a permanent establishment, could not be taxed as business profits under Article 7.

Conclusion: The receipt from MAX India Ltd. was not taxable in India and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amounts received from Wockhardt Hospital Ltd. were taxable as royalty or fees for included services, or were business profits not chargeable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.

Analysis: The agreement with WHL was principally for advisory, education and training services. The mere permission to use the name and logo was incidental and the agreement itself indicated that the intellectual property use, other than the protected name and logo, carried no separate economic consideration. The services did not make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how, and the payment could not be artificially bifurcated into royalty and fees for included services. As the receipt was for business activities and no permanent establishment existed in India, Article 7 barred taxation in India.

Conclusion: The receipt from Wockhardt Hospital Ltd. was not taxable in India and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reimbursement of expenses received from Indian entities constituted taxable income.

Analysis: The reimbursements were prima facie toward travel, boarding, lodging and similar actual expenses incurred for visits connected with the service arrangements. Such receipts were not shown to be part of the consideration for services, and on the facts found they could not be treated as income. Even otherwise, they would not attract Indian tax as business income in the absence of a permanent establishment, and if treated as other income, Article 23(1) protected them from taxation in India.

Conclusion: The reimbursement amounts were not taxable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether tax was deductible at source under section 195(2) on the payments made to the non-resident.

Analysis: Once the underlying receipts were held to be not taxable in India, no tax liability arose in the hands of the non-resident on the payments in question. In that situation, the payer had no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195(2).

Conclusion: No tax was deductible at source and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the receipts from MAX India Ltd. and Wockhardt Hospital Ltd. were not taxable in India, the reimbursement receipts were also not assessable to tax, and no withholding obligation arose on the related payments.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the India-USA DTAA, advisory and educational services are taxable as fees for included services only when they satisfy the treaty's "make available" requirement, and incidental use of a name or logo does not by itself convert a services contract into royalty; in the absence of a permanent establishment, such receipts are not taxable as business profits in India.

---