Cost-to-cost business support reimbursements were held outside royalty and fees for technical services

Business support charges recovered on a cost-to-cost basis without mark-up were treated as reimbursement of expenses and not taxable as royalty or fees for technical services. The Tribunal held that acting as a central coordinator for group entities, including arranging insurance, IT support, procurement-related services, BPO processing and administrative inputs, did not amount to rendering managerial, technical or consultancy services. It applied the principle that a coordinated support or facility arrangement, without making technical knowledge available or involving a profit element, falls outside royalty and fees for technical services. The low-end BPO and procurement activities were therefore characterised as commercial coordinating functions, and the receipts were held not taxable.

---

---

Issues: Whether business support charges received by the assessee were taxable as royalty or fees for technical services, or were only reimbursement of costs not chargeable to tax.

Analysis: The assessee acted as a central coordinator for group entities and procured insurance, IT support, procurement-related services, BPO processing and administrative inputs for the group. The amounts recovered from the Indian entity were on a cost-to-cost basis without mark-up and were pooled and allocated through uniform keys. The Tribunal held that these receipts were in the nature of reimbursement of expenses and not consideration for rendering managerial, technical or consultancy services. It relied on the principle that a facility or coordinated support arrangement, without making technical knowledge available or involving a profit element, does not constitute fees for technical services or royalty. It also found the low-end BPO and procurement-related activities to be commercial/coordinating functions, not taxable technical services.

Conclusion: The business support charges were not taxable as royalty or fees for technical services and were treated as mere reimbursement of cost, in favour of the assessee.

---