Treaty "make available" test limits taxation of subcontract payments despite domestic fees for technical services characterization.

An overseas subsidiary's subcontract income was treated as arising from an Indian source because the applicant secured the contract, directed performance and subcontracted part of the work, but the India-Australia DTAA still prevented Indian taxation as the subsidiary had no permanent establishment in India. The payment was characterised as fees for technical services under domestic law because the work was carried out under the applicant's directions, yet the treaty "make available" test was not met, so the amount was not taxable as FTS or royalty under Article 12. As no amount was chargeable to tax in India under the DTAA, no withholding obligation arose under section 195.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the income arising to the overseas subsidiary from the subcontract work was sourced in India and taxable under the Act or the India-Australia DTAA. (ii) Whether the payments constituted fees for technical services, including whether the DTAA "make available" condition was satisfied. (iii) Whether tax was required to be deducted at source under section 195 on the subcontract and reimbursement payments.

Issue (i): Whether the income arising to the overseas subsidiary from the subcontract work was sourced in India and taxable under the Act or the India-Australia DTAA.

Analysis: The arrangement was examined as a whole, including the applicant's role in securing the contract, giving directions for performance, and subcontracting part of the work to its Australian subsidiary. On that basis, the income of the overseas subsidiary was held to arise from a source in India. However, the Authority also held that under the treaty the payment could not be brought to tax in India merely on that footing, since the subsidiary had no permanent establishment in India and the treaty position governed the taxability of the amount.

Conclusion: The income was ruled to arise from a source in India, but the amount was not chargeable to tax in India under the DTAA.

Issue (ii): Whether the payments constituted fees for technical services, including whether the DTAA "make available" condition was satisfied.

Analysis: The payment was treated as fees for technical services under the Act because the work was performed pursuant to the applicant's directions and contractual arrangements. But the treaty test required that technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes be made available to the applicant. The Authority found that the subsidiary was not making available any such technical knowledge or skill, and therefore the treaty definition was not satisfied. The payment was thus not royalty under Article 12 either.

Conclusion: The payment was fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, but it did not satisfy the treaty "make available" requirement and was not royalty under Article 12.

Issue (iii): Whether tax was required to be deducted at source under section 195 on the subcontract and reimbursement payments.

Analysis: Since the amount was held not chargeable to tax in India under the DTAA, no withholding obligation arose on the facts found by the Authority. The reimbursement question was not separately ruled upon in substance beyond the absence of a withholding requirement on the decided issues.

Conclusion: No deduction of tax at source was required under section 195 on the amount held not chargeable to tax in India.

Final Conclusion: The ruling was partly favourable to the Revenue on domestic-law characterization, but the treaty position prevailed on taxability, resulting in no Indian tax liability and no withholding obligation on the payments considered.

Ratio Decidendi: For treaty purposes, fees for technical services are taxable in India only when the non-resident makes available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes to the payer; absent that condition, the payment is not taxable in India merely because the income source is linked to India.

---