TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the University of Texas institute was a resident covered by the India-USA DTAA; (ii) Whether the payments to UT(IC2) were taxable in India as fees for included services or business profits; (iii) Whether FICCI was required to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the University of Texas institute was a resident covered by the India-USA DTAA.
Analysis: The treaty definition of resident turns on liability to tax in the contracting state. The certificate produced showed that the University was a resident of the United States for U.S. tax purposes and was not outside the treaty merely because it enjoyed exemption for certain income. The existence of filing obligations and tax liability on non-exempt income supported treaty residency.
Conclusion: The University of Texas institute was covered by Article 4 of the DTAA.
Issue (ii): Whether the payments to UT(IC2) were taxable in India as fees for included services or business profits.
Analysis: Under Article 12(4)(b), technical or consultancy services are taxable only if they make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes to the recipient. The activities performed for the ATAC programme consisted of training, technology assessment, commercial assessment, report preparation, and business development support. They were services of facilitation, evaluation, and recommendation, not teaching within Article 12(5)(c), and they did not equip DRDO or FICCI to perform the same functions independently in future. The Quicklook reports and related outputs were specific commercial analyses and did not transfer technical know-how, a technical plan, or enduring expertise. As UT had no permanent establishment in India, the receipts could not be taxed as business profits either.
Conclusion: The payments were not taxable in India as fees for included services or as business profits.
Issue (iii): Whether FICCI was required to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: Section 195 is triggered only where the sum paid is chargeable to tax in India. Since the receipts to UT(IC2) were held not taxable under the Act or the DTAA, the withholding obligation did not arise.
Conclusion: FICCI was not required to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
Final Conclusion: The treaty applied, the receipts to UT(IC2) were not chargeable to tax in India, and no withholding obligation arose on the payments made under the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: Technical or consultancy services fall within Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA DTAA only when they make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes to the recipient; where the services are limited to facilitation, assessment, and commercial advice without such transmission, the receipts are not taxable in India and no tax deduction under Section 195 arises.
TaxTMI 
