Automated content delivery payments were not technical fees, royalty, or treaty included services, and no withholding arose.

A standard automated content delivery platform available equally to all users, without customised human intervention, did not constitute fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii). It also failed the India-US Treaty "make available" test, so it was not fees for included services under Article 12(4). Because no copyright, process, equipment right, or other intellectual property right was transferred, the receipts were not royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12(3). On the stated facts, the applicant had no permanent establishment in India, and as the receipts were not otherwise taxable, no withholding obligation arose under section 195.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether payments for content delivery solutions constituted fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii); (ii) whether the same payments constituted fees for included services under Article 12(4) of the India-US Treaty; (iii) whether the receipts were royalty under section 9(1)(vi) and Article 12(3); (iv) whether the applicant had a permanent establishment in India under Article 5; (v) whether tax was required to be withheld under section 195.

Issue (i): whether payments for content delivery solutions constituted fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii).

Analysis: The definition of fees for technical services covers managerial, technical or consultancy services. The solutions were provided as a standard facility through an automated platform to all customers alike, without customization to individual needs. The presence of sophisticated technology by itself did not make the arrangement technical. The element of human intervention was confined to development, marketing and support functions and was not part of the delivery of the solutions.

Conclusion: The receipts were not fees for technical services and were outside Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii).

Issue (ii): whether the same payments constituted fees for included services under Article 12(4) of the India-US Treaty.

Analysis: Article 12(4) applies only where the service is ancillary and subsidiary to royalty or where technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes are made available. The arrangement only enabled faster content delivery and did not transmit any technical knowledge or skill to the recipient so as to enable independent future use without recourse to the provider. The treaty test of make available was therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The receipts were not fees for included services under Article 12(4).

Issue (iii): whether the receipts were royalty under section 9(1)(vi) and Article 12(3).

Analysis: Royalty requires consideration for the use of, or right to use, copyright, trademark, process, equipment, or similar property. The agreement did not transfer any copyright or other intellectual property right, did not grant any right to use the platform or equipment, and did not confer possession or control over the infrastructure on the reseller or customers. The arrangement remained one for provision of a service facility, not exploitation of rights in property or process.

Conclusion: The receipts did not constitute royalty and were not taxable on that basis.

Issue (iv): whether the applicant had a permanent establishment in India under Article 5.

Analysis: The applicant had no office, employees or fixed place in India, and the reseller acted on a principal-to-principal basis without authority to bind the applicant. On the facts presented, none of the treaty tests for a fixed place or agency permanent establishment were met.

Conclusion: The applicant did not have a permanent establishment in India on the facts of the case.

Issue (v): whether tax was required to be withheld under section 195.

Analysis: Since the receipts were not chargeable as fees for technical services, fees for included services or royalty, and no taxable income accrued in India on the stated facts, the withholding obligation did not arise.

Conclusion: No tax was required to be withheld under section 195.

Final Conclusion: The ruling held that the content delivery receipts were not taxable in India under the Act or the treaty, the applicant had no permanent establishment on the facts found, and no withholding obligation arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A standardized automated facility available equally to all users, without imparting technical knowledge or granting rights in intellectual property, process or equipment, does not amount to fees for technical services, fees for included services or royalty.

---