India-UK DTAA treaty residence and make available test limit FTS taxation; reimbursements and section 234B interest also rejected.

Treaty benefits under the India-UK DTAA depend on satisfaction of the treaty residence test, and a UK LLP may qualify where partnership profits are taxed in the UK even if taxation is at partner level. Fees are taxable as fees for technical services only if the recipient is made able to apply technical knowledge, skill or know-how independently in future; mere advisory use is insufficient. Article 15 applies only to an individual, so it does not cover a LLP. Actual reimbursements without markup are not income, services rendered in India require separate factual examination, and interest under section 234B was treated as not leviable on the stated facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee, a UK LLP, was entitled to the benefit of the India-UK DTAA; (ii) whether the fees received by the assessee were taxable as fees for technical services under Article 13(4)(c) of the DTAA and section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) whether Article 15 of the India-UK DTAA applied to the assessee; (iv) whether reimbursements of expenditure formed part of taxable income; (v) whether the income attributable to services rendered in India had to be separately examined and whether the withdrawal of deduction under section 44C and the change of status required reconsideration; and (vi) whether interest under section 234B was leviable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee, a UK LLP, was entitled to the benefit of the India-UK DTAA.

Analysis: The entitlement to treaty benefits depended on the assessee answering the treaty definition of resident. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case and held that the relevant test was satisfied where the partnership profits were taxed in the UK, even if taxation occurred in the hands of the partners rather than the firm itself. The Revenue pointed to fiscal transparency, but no distinguishing factual or legal basis was shown.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of the India-UK DTAA and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the fees received by the assessee were taxable as fees for technical services under Article 13(4)(c) of the DTAA and section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled meaning of "make available" and held that mere use of advisory or legal services by the recipient is not enough. Technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how must be transmitted so that the recipient can apply it independently in future without the service provider. On the facts, the assessee's legal and advisory services did not leave any enduring technical skill or knowledge with the clients.

Conclusion: The receipts did not constitute fees for technical services under Article 13 of the DTAA and could not be taxed on that basis under section 9(1)(vii) in view of section 90(2); the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Article 15 of the India-UK DTAA applied to the assessee.

Analysis: Article 15 was confined to income derived by an individual from professional or similar independent activities. The assessee was a limited liability partnership and not an individual, so the article could not govern its taxability.

Conclusion: Article 15 was inapplicable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether reimbursements of expenditure formed part of taxable income.

Analysis: The reimbursements were shown to be actual expenses incurred without any mark-up, and the Revenue did not establish any income element in them. The Tribunal followed its earlier orders in the assessee's case holding that such reimbursements are not revenue receipts taxable as income.

Conclusion: The reimbursements were not taxable as income and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the income attributable to services rendered in India had to be separately examined and whether the withdrawal of deduction under section 44C and the change of status required reconsideration.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the legal principle that only profits attributable to services rendered in India could be assessed in India and that the matter required factual verification. It therefore remitted the factual examination of the rendering of services in India, the section 44C deduction and the status inconsistency to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with opportunity to the assessee.

Conclusion: These grounds were restored for factual verification and were allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (vi): Whether interest under section 234B was leviable.

Analysis: Following binding precedent in the assessee's own case and the jurisdictional High Court decision relied upon, the Tribunal held that such interest was not leviable on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Interest under section 234B was not leviable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was substantially set aside in favour of the assessee on the core treaty and taxability questions, while certain consequential grounds were remanded for verification, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the India-UK DTAA, treaty benefits are available where the treaty resident test is satisfied, and fees for technical services arise only when the service provider makes available technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how so that the recipient can apply it independently in future; mere use of advisory services does not meet that threshold.

---