Arm's length remuneration bars further PE attribution; platform access receipts are neither royalty nor fee for technical services.
Where an Indian associated enterprise had been remunerated at arm's length and no transfer pricing adjustment survived, no further profit attribution to an alleged dependent agent permanent establishment was warranted. Receipts for online auction services and platform access were not royalty because there was no right to use equipment or transfer of control over equipment. The same receipts were not fee for technical services because the services were standardised and did not make available technical knowledge, skill, or experience to the recipient. The amended agreement could not be ignored to assess notional income, as it was neither shown to be sham nor displaced by the Revenue's position in other years.
Issues: (i) Whether any further attribution of profits could be made to the alleged dependent agent permanent establishment when the Indian associated enterprise had been remunerated at arm's length; (ii) whether the receipts from the Indian entity were chargeable as royalty under the treaty and the Act; (iii) whether the receipts could alternatively be taxed as fee for technical services; (iv) whether notional income could be assessed by disregarding the amended agreement.
Issue (i): Whether any further attribution of profits could be made to the alleged dependent agent permanent establishment when the Indian associated enterprise had been remunerated at arm's length.
Analysis: The transfer pricing adjustments in the assessment of the Indian associated enterprise had not survived. Where the associated enterprise has already been examined at arm's length, there is no basis for making a further profit attribution to the alleged permanent establishment. The absence of any surviving transfer pricing adjustment meant that additional attribution would not be sustainable.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee. No further attribution to the alleged permanent establishment was permissible.
Issue (ii): Whether the receipts from the Indian entity were chargeable as royalty under the treaty and the Act.
Analysis: The payments were for online auction services and access to a platform, not for a right to use equipment. Royalty on equipment use requires transfer of control or possession over the equipment, which was absent. Mere access through login credentials did not amount to use of equipment or grant of an exclusive right.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee. The receipts did not constitute royalty under the treaty or under the domestic provision.
Issue (iii): Whether the receipts could alternatively be taxed as fee for technical services.
Analysis: The services were standardized commercial services and did not involve making available technical knowledge, skill, or experience to the recipient. The treaty requirement of the make available clause was not satisfied, and no technical know-how was transferred so as to enable independent future use by the recipient.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee. The receipts were not taxable as fee for technical services.
Issue (iv): Whether notional income could be assessed by disregarding the amended agreement.
Analysis: The amended agreement governed the parties' rights and obligations and had not been shown to be a sham or colourable device. In addition, the Revenue had accepted the position in other years that only actual receipts could be taxed where no adverse transfer pricing finding survived. Notional receipts could not be brought to tax on the facts.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee. Notional income could not be taxed by ignoring the amended agreement.
Final Conclusion: The additions on account of alleged permanent establishment attribution, royalty, fee for technical services, and notional income did not survive, and the assessee obtained substantial relief in the appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the associated enterprise has been found to be at arm's length and no transfer pricing adjustment survives, further profit attribution to an alleged permanent establishment is not warranted; service receipts are not royalty unless there is a right to use equipment with control, and they are not fee for technical services unless technical knowledge is made available to the recipient.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
