Permanent establishment, software royalty, and training fee issues resolved against Indian taxation on offshore supply and related receipts.

Offshore equipment supply income was treated as arising from offshore manufacture, offshore transfer of title, and offshore receipt of consideration, and in the absence of a taxable permanent establishment or proof that Indian entities habitually concluded contracts, no profits were attributable to India. Embedded software supplied with hardware was characterised as a copyrighted article or goods, not a transfer of copyright rights, so the receipts were not royalty. Initial training linked to operation of the equipment was ancillary to the sale and did not make available technical knowledge, so it was not fees for technical services. Proportionate research and development expenses were allowable in computing attributable income.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee had a permanent establishment and business connection in India so as to make profits from supply of equipment taxable in India and attributable to Indian activities; (ii) whether consideration for supply of embedded software was taxable as royalty; (iii) whether receipts for initial training services were taxable as fees for technical services; and (iv) whether research and development expenses were allowable while computing attributable income.

Issue (i): whether the assessee had a permanent establishment and business connection in India so as to make profits from supply of equipment taxable in India and attributable to Indian activities

Analysis: The income from supply of equipment was held to arise from offshore manufacture, offshore transfer of title, and offshore receipt of consideration. On the material available, the Indian subsidiary and liaison office were not shown to be at the disposal of the assessee as a fixed place of business, nor was there evidence that they habitually concluded contracts on the assessee's behalf. Activities such as installation, commissioning, testing, and services performed in India by the Indian entity or seconded personnel were treated as the Indian entity's own taxable activities and not the assessee's income. In the absence of a taxable permanent establishment, no attribution of profits to Indian operations survived.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the supply of equipment income was not chargeable to tax in India and no attribution to an alleged Indian permanent establishment was permissible.

Issue (ii): whether consideration for supply of embedded software was taxable as royalty

Analysis: The embedded software was found to be integral to the hardware and incapable of independent commercial use. What was supplied was treated as a copyrighted article or goods, not a transfer of copyright or rights in the copyright itself. Mere separate invoicing or the existence of software updates did not alter the true character of the transaction. On that footing, the receipts could not be brought to tax as royalty.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the embedded software receipts were not royalty and could not be separately taxed.

Issue (iii): whether receipts for initial training services were taxable as fees for technical services

Analysis: The training was limited to enabling the purchaser to operate the supplied equipment and was ancillary and subsidiary to the sale. It was not an independent service contract, and there was no material to show supervision or maintenance services involving making available technical knowledge in the relevant treaty sense. The payments therefore fell within the treaty exclusion for services inextricably and essentially linked to the sale of property.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; the training receipts were not fees for technical services.

Issue (iv): whether research and development expenses were allowable while computing attributable income

Analysis: The expenses were accepted as business-linked expenditure reflected in the assessee's global accounts and used in determining profit attribution. No legal infirmity was found in allowing proportionate deduction of such expenses while computing income, especially when the underlying attribution methodology itself proceeded on global profit figures.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue; the deduction was allowable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals of the assessee succeeded and the revenue's appeals failed, with the result that the additions made on account of permanent establishment, software royalty, and training fees did not survive, and the related profit attribution approach was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Offshore supply income is not taxable in India absent a taxable permanent establishment or evidence of Indian operations yielding attributable profits, and embedded software supplied as part of functioning hardware is taxable as goods rather than royalty.

---