Make available test and non-resident withholding drove remand, while section 234B interest was held not chargeable.

Administrative support receipts under the India-Singapore tax treaty were examined against the make available test for fees for technical services. Because the record contained only limited correspondence and billing material, and did not clearly establish how the services were rendered or whether technical knowledge, skill or experience was made available, the taxability question was sent back for fresh factual examination. Interest under section 234B was held not chargeable in respect of non-resident income subject to tax withholding at source, as advance tax liability did not arise. The grossing-up adjustment was also remitted because it depended on the final determination of the underlying taxability of the receipts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether administrative support receipts were taxable as fees for technical services under the India-Singapore tax treaty on the basis that the services made available technical knowledge, skills or experience; (ii) whether interest under section 234B was chargeable in the case of a non-resident where tax was deductible at source; (iii) whether the addition on account of grossing up of tax deducted at source could survive when the basic taxability issue was sent back for fresh examination.

Issue (i): Whether administrative support receipts were taxable as fees for technical services under the India-Singapore tax treaty on the basis that the services made available technical knowledge, skills or experience.

Analysis: The services described in the agreement included marketing and advertising support, MIS and accounting support, treasury support, and information technology support. The record before the lower authorities was found to be incomplete: only limited emails and bills were furnished, and the materials mainly reflected simple queries, templates, and routine support. The nature of the services and the manner of their rendition were not adequately established, and the question whether the services satisfied the make available condition could not be conclusively answered on the existing record. The matter therefore required fuller factual examination.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to examine whether the services satisfied the make available test.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under section 234B was chargeable in the case of a non-resident where tax was deductible at source.

Analysis: The income arose in the hands of a non-resident and tax was required to be withheld at source by the payer. In such a situation, the non-resident was not liable to pay advance tax on that income, and the liability to interest under section 234B did not arise.

Conclusion: Interest under section 234B was held not chargeable.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition on account of grossing up of tax deducted at source could survive when the basic taxability issue was sent back for fresh examination.

Analysis: The grossing-up adjustment depended on the ultimate determination of the taxability of the underlying receipts. Since that foundational issue was remitted for fresh consideration, the consequential adjustment could not be finally sustained on the existing record.

Conclusion: The grossing-up issue was also remitted to the Assessing Officer.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with one issue decided in favour of the assessee and the remaining substantive issue(s) sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a non-resident's income is subject to withholding tax at source, interest under section 234B is not leviable; and where the factual foundation for applying the make available test is incomplete, the taxability issue may be remanded for fresh examination.

---