Make available test limits treaty taxation of support services, while lease line reimbursements are not royalty and TDS bars interest.

Under the India-USA DTAA, marketing, sales support and managerial services rendered outside India were not fees for included services because the make available test was not met, while services rendered in India created a service permanent establishment and the attributable income was taxable as business profits. Reimbursement of lease line charges was not royalty because the arrangement was only telecom connectivity and did not place equipment or intellectual property at the payer's disposal. Interest under sections 234B and 234C was not leviable where the non-resident's income was subject to tax deduction at source. Reimbursement and asset acquisition payments were remanded for fresh factual examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether marketing and management fees received for services rendered outside India were taxable as fees for included services, and whether the fees for services rendered in India were attributable to a service permanent establishment in India; (ii) Whether reimbursement of lease line charges constituted royalty; (iii) Whether interest under sections 234B and 234C was leviable where tax was deductible at source on the non-resident's income; (iv) Whether the reimbursement of expenses and asset acquisition payments required fresh determination.

Issue (i): Whether marketing and management fees received for services rendered outside India were taxable as fees for included services, and whether the fees for services rendered in India were attributable to a service permanent establishment in India.

Analysis: The relevant treaty provision applied the "make available" test, under which services are taxable as technical or consultancy services only if they transmit technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes so that the recipient can apply them independently in future. The services in question were marketing, sales support, negotiation, managerial support and related assistance, and did not result in any enduring transfer of technical knowledge or skill to the Indian entity. The services rendered outside India were not taxable in India as fees for included services and were not attributable to the service permanent establishment. The services rendered in India, however, gave rise to a service permanent establishment, and the income attributable to those India-sourced services was taxable as business profits under the treaty.

Conclusion: The receipts for services rendered outside India were not taxable as fees for included services and were not attributable to the service permanent establishment, while the receipts for services rendered in India were taxable as business profits attributable to the service permanent establishment.

Issue (ii): Whether reimbursement of lease line charges constituted royalty.

Analysis: The lease line arrangement was only a telecom connectivity facility. It did not place any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment at the disposal of the payer, nor did it confer any right to use such equipment. The payments were reimbursements of actual connectivity charges without markup and did not involve the use of intellectual property or the imparting of industrial, commercial or scientific experience.

Conclusion: The reimbursement of lease line charges did not constitute royalty and was not taxable as such.

Issue (iii): Whether interest under sections 234B and 234C was leviable where tax was deductible at source on the non-resident's income.

Analysis: Where the entire income of a non-resident is subject to tax deduction at source, the advance tax computation stands reduced by the tax deductible at source. In such a situation, there is no liability to pay advance tax by the assessee and consequently no basis for charging compensatory interest for default in advance tax.

Conclusion: Interest under sections 234B and 234C was not leviable.

Issue (iv): Whether the reimbursement of expenses and asset acquisition payments required fresh determination.

Analysis: The exact nature of the reimbursed expenditure and the corresponding services or assets required factual verification before the tax character could be determined. The matter was therefore sent back for reconsideration after examination of the relevant details.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenges failed on the substantive treaty and interest issues, while the assessee's reimbursement-related disputes were restored for fresh adjudication, resulting in partial relief overall.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the India-USA DTAA, mere rendering of marketing and support services does not amount to fees for included services unless technical knowledge is made available to the recipient, and a non-resident is not liable for advance-tax interest where the entire income is subject to tax deduction at source.

---