Make available test and section 44BB determine tax treatment of non-resident exploration and consultancy receipts.

Non-resident consultancy and exploration-related receipts were analysed under the DTAA and the Income-tax Act, with the decisive treaty test being whether the services made technical knowledge, skill or know-how available for independent future use. One-time advisory, investigation and feasibility services were held not to satisfy the make available condition, so they were outside the treaty definition of fees for technical services. Services directly connected with oilfield operations, blowout control, training and inspection were treated as proximate to mineral-oil activity and taxable under the special presumptive regime in section 44BB, not as fees for technical services. The same approach applied to underground coal gasification and allied geological investigation, which were held within section 44BB.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether consideration received by non-resident consultants from services rendered in connection with offshore exploration and accident investigation was taxable as fees for technical services under the relevant DTAA when the make available condition was in dispute; (ii) Whether blowout control and related training, inspection and advisory services were chargeable under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or fell within section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) Whether services relating to underground coal gasification and allied geological investigation were covered by section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or taxable as technical services.

Issue (i): Whether consideration received by non-resident consultants from services rendered in connection with offshore exploration and accident investigation was taxable as fees for technical services under the relevant DTAA when the make available condition was in dispute.

Analysis: The services consisted of one-time advisory, investigation and feasibility work. The technical reports and assistance enabled the recipient to use the outcome, but did not transmit technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how so as to allow independent future application without the service provider. The services were neither ancillary and subsidiary to any right, property or information, nor did they satisfy the make available requirement in the treaty article governing technical services.

Conclusion: The receipts did not fall within the treaty definition of fees for technical services and were not taxable in India on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether blowout control and related training, inspection and advisory services were chargeable under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or fell within section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The contract concerned services directly connected with oilfield operations and the handling of blowout emergencies, including training, inspection and procedural support. Applying the settled principle that works or services directly associated with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil are to be assessed under the special presumptive regime, the nature of the activity was held to be within the mining and mineral-oil field exception rather than ordinary technical services.

Conclusion: The receipts were taxable only under section 44BB and could not be assessed as fees for technical services.

Issue (iii): Whether services relating to underground coal gasification and allied geological investigation were covered by section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or taxable as technical services.

Analysis: The contract was for investigation and detailed evaluation of mining, geological and hydro-geological conditions for a coal gasification project. The Court applied the test of proximate and inextricable connection with mining activity and followed the principle that services rendered for exploration and extraction-type operations, including training and drilling-related support, fall within the special presumptive regime and not within the technical-services exclusion.

Conclusion: The receipts were held taxable under section 44BB and not as technical services.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive taxability questions, with the non-resident receipts in the allowed appeals falling outside the technical-services charge and within the presumptive regime, while the revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Services rendered to a non-resident in connection with mineral-oil or similar mining operations are taxable under section 44BB where they are directly associated with such operations, and treaty-based fees for technical services apply only if the recipient is made able to independently apply the technical knowledge, skill or know-how in future.

---