Data processing service payments for offshore data centres not treated as royalty or fees for technical services, so not taxable in India.

Payments made to a nonresident for provision of data processing services from abroad do not constitute royalty because there was no transfer or imparting of technology, information, know how, or any right in intangible property; accordingly such receipts are not taxable in India as royalty under the domestic law and cannot be taxed as fees for technical services where only standard, automated data processing facilities were supplied without human intervention, and the payments are therefore not taxable in India. The tribunal directed the assessing officer to consider credit for tax already paid per stay directions and deleted interest under the relevant tax provision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether payments made to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), India to the assessee are payments for "Royalty" or "Fees for Technical Services (FTS)"Rs.
2. Whether the benefits of Sec. 115A of the Act will be available to the assessee if the payments from SCB, India are held to be taxable as Royalty or/and FTSRs.
3. Whether the income should be taxed on gross receipts instead of net receiptsRs.
4. Whether the assessee is entitled to tax credit for taxes paidRs.
5. Whether interest under section 234B of the Act is applicableRs.
6. Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is validRs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Payments: Royalty or Fees for Technical Services (FTS)Rs.
The primary issue was whether the payments made by SCB India to the assessee for data processing services constituted "Royalty" or "Fees for Technical Services (FTS)" under Section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

- Royalty: The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the payments were for the use of technology, data centers, infrastructure, connectivity, and application technology provided by the assessee to SCB India. The AO contended that this constituted "Royalty" as per Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi). However, the Tribunal found that the assessee was merely providing data processing services using its own technology and infrastructure without transferring any right to SCB India. The Tribunal held that there was no use or right to use any process, model, design, invention, or equipment by SCB India, thus the payments did not qualify as "Royalty."

- FTS: The AO also classified the payments as FTS, emphasizing the technical and managerial services provided by the assessee. However, the Tribunal noted that the data processing services were automated and did not involve significant human intervention. It concluded that the services provided were standard facilities rather than technical or consultancy services requiring human involvement. Thus, the payments did not qualify as FTS.

2. Applicability of Section 115A:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of the rate of tax under Section 115A became academic since it had already concluded that the payments were not taxable in India as either Royalty or FTS. Therefore, the Tribunal did not delve into the specifics of whether the payments should be taxed at 20% or 10% under Section 115A.

3. Taxation on Gross vs. Net Receipts:
The assessee argued that the income should be taxed on net receipts after deducting expenses attributable to gross receipts. Since the Tribunal held that the payments were not taxable in India, this issue was rendered infructuous.

4. Tax Credit for Taxes Paid:
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow credit for taxes paid amounting to Rs. 2 crores as per the directions given by the Tribunal in the stay petition.

5. Interest under Section 234B:
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B was not applicable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of NGC Network Asia LLC, which stated that interest under Section 234B is not chargeable when the entire income is subject to tax deduction at source.

6. Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal dismissed this ground as premature since the penalty proceedings were only initiated and not concluded.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the payments made by SCB India to the assessee were neither "Royalty" nor "Fees for Technical Services" under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the payments were not taxable in India. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow tax credit for taxes paid and to delete the interest charged under Section 234B. The issue of penalty proceedings was dismissed as premature.

---