Royalty and technical services tests bar TDS on software, support, training and expatriate reimbursement payments

Payments to a foreign associated entity for software licences, IT support, lease line charges, training and expatriate salary reimbursement were examined against the royalty and fees for technical services tests. Software payments for a copyrighted article were not treated as royalty because no copyright was acquired. IT support, internet and lease line charges were treated as neither royalty nor technical services, and lease line charges were at most reimbursement. Web-based training did not make available technical knowledge or know-how, and the expatriate salary reimbursement under the secondment arrangement did not create a separate TDS obligation. No tax was deductible, so no default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on payments made to the foreign associated entity towards software licence fees, IT support and lease line charges, training fees, and reimbursement of salary of expatriate employees, and whether consequential demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable.

Analysis: The payments were examined in the light of the earlier decision in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years, which had already considered identical categories of expenditure. For software-related payments, the governing principle was that purchase of a copyrighted article does not amount to royalty where no copyright is acquired. For IT support, internet and lease line charges, the Tribunal's earlier view was that such charges were neither royalty nor fees for technical services, and lease line charges were at best reimbursement of expenses. For training fees, the relevant test was whether any technical knowledge, skill or know-how was made available; web-based training without transfer of technology did not satisfy that requirement. For expatriate salary reimbursements under the secondment arrangement, tax had already been deducted on salary and the deputation did not, on the facts, create an independent liability to deduct tax again as fees for technical services.

Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on the impugned payments and could not be treated as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Final Conclusion: The addition of tax and interest demand was set aside and the appeal succeeded on all substantive grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the recipient's payment is for a copyrighted article, reimbursement, or services that do not make available technical knowledge or rights to use copyright, the payment is not taxable as royalty or fees for technical services and no TDS liability arises under section 195.

---