Treaty rate prevails for withholding tax on technical service payments, while retrospective amendment issues required fresh examination.

Payments to a Chinese subcontractor were held taxable in India as fees for technical services under the Income-tax Act and the India-China DTAA, so tax had to be withheld under section 195. The Tribunal also held that the treaty rate prevails over the higher domestic default rate under section 206AA, limiting deduction to the treaty rate despite absence of PAN. For the payment made on 01.05.2010, the effect of the retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vii) required fresh factual examination, so that issue was remitted for de novo consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the payments made to the Chinese subsidiary for subcontracted work were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services or royalty under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the India-China DTAA, attracting deduction of tax at source under section 195. (ii) Whether section 206AA could be applied to require deduction at 20% despite the treaty rate. (iii) Whether the payment made on 01.05.2010 could be fastened with withholding liability in view of the retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vii).

Issue (i): Whether the payments made to the Chinese subsidiary for subcontracted work were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services or royalty under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the India-China DTAA, attracting deduction of tax at source under section 195.

Analysis: The payment was examined under the domestic law and the treaty. On the domestic side, the retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vii) displaced the earlier requirement that services must be rendered in India, and the exception in section 9(1)(vii)(b) was held inapplicable on the facts. Under the DTAA, Article 12(4) and Article 12(6) were read harmoniously, and the deeming source rule in Article 12(6) was treated as sufficient to bring the payment within the treaty definition of fees for technical services. The contention that the payment was outside the charge as royalty or fees for technical services was rejected.

Conclusion: The payment was held taxable in India as fees for technical services, and the withholding obligation under section 195 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether section 206AA could be applied to require deduction at 20% despite the treaty rate.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the principle that the applicable rate under the DTAA prevails over the higher domestic default rate under section 206AA, even where the non-resident deductee does not furnish PAN. The treaty rate was therefore treated as controlling for the withholding computation.

Conclusion: Section 206AA was held inapplicable to the extent it prescribed a higher rate, and deduction was restricted to the treaty rate of 10%.

Issue (iii): Whether the payment made on 01.05.2010 could be fastened with withholding liability in view of the retrospective amendment to section 9(1)(vii).

Analysis: For the payment made before the Finance Act, 2010 received presidential assent, the Tribunal followed the earlier view that the retrospective amendment did not automatically settle the factual question whether the payment related to services rendered outside India. As the factual matrix required fresh examination, the limited issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The issue relating to the payment dated 01.05.2010 was remanded for de novo consideration.

Final Conclusion: The substantive chargeability issue was decided against the assessee for the later year, the treaty rate was applied in the assessee's favour, and the pre-amendment payment issue was sent back for fresh determination, resulting in partial relief overall.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a payment falls within the treaty definition of fees for technical services, Article 12 is applied harmoniously with the domestic charging provisions, and a higher domestic withholding rate cannot override the treaty rate.

---