Payments for installation & commissioning not taxable as "Fees for Technical Services" - training costs partially taxable.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It upheld that payments for installation and commissioning were not taxable as "Fees for Technical Services." However, it modified the estimation of training costs to CHF 17,500, with 25% of this amount being taxable as "Fees for Technical Services." The decision was pronounced on 12th November 2014.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment made by the assessee towards installation, commissioning, and training of mail room equipment is taxable as "Fees for Technical Services" under the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the services rendered by FERAG AG fall within the ambit of "construction, assembly or like project" under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.
3. Applicability of Article 14 of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the Swiss Confederation to the services rendered by FERAG AG.
4. Correctness of the CIT(A)'s estimation of 25% of the payment as attributable to training and taxable as "Fees for Technical Services."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Taxability of Payment as "Fees for Technical Services"
The assessee argued that the services for installation, commissioning, and training were inextricably linked to the supply of equipment and should not be taxed separately as "Fees for Technical Services." The Tribunal noted that the contracts for supply and services were distinct, with separate pricing and obligations. Hence, the services rendered by FERAG AG could be considered independently for tax purposes. The Tribunal concluded that the payments for installation, commissioning, and training were indeed liable to be considered as "Fees for Technical Services" under the Act.

Issue 2: Services as "Construction, Assembly or Like Project"
The assessee contended that the services fell within the "assembly" exclusion under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The CIT(A) and Tribunal agreed that the activities of positioning, aligning, and connecting components to ensure proper functioning constituted "assembly." Consequently, the payments for installation and commissioning did not fall under "Fees for Technical Services." However, the training services did not qualify as "assembly" and were thus taxable as "Fees for Technical Services."

Issue 3: Applicability of Article 14 of the DTAA
The Tribunal examined whether the services rendered by FERAG AG fell under "independent personal services" as defined in Article 14 of the DTAA. The Tribunal found that the engineering services for installation and commissioning were covered under Article 14, making them taxable only in Switzerland. However, training services did not fall under "professional services" and were taxable in India. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that Article 14 applied only to individuals, noting that the DTAA referred to "residents of a contracting state."

Issue 4: Estimation of Training Costs
The CIT(A) had estimated that 25% of the payment was attributable to training and taxable as "Fees for Technical Services." The assessee argued that this estimation was excessive and provided a breakdown showing only CHF 17,500 was for training. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation excessive and accepted the assessee's breakdown. The Tribunal concluded that 25% of CHF 17,500 could be reasonably attributed to training and taxed accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the payments for installation and commissioning were not taxable as "Fees for Technical Services" but modified the estimation of training costs to CHF 17,500, with 25% of this amount being taxable as "Fees for Technical Services." The order was pronounced on 12th November 2014.

---