Service receipts and lease line charges were not taxable as technical fees, included services, or royalty on recurring facts.

Freight and logistic support service receipts were not characterised as fee for technical services or fee for included services because prior ITAT orders in the assessee's own case had already rejected that treatment on unchanged facts and law; the addition was deleted. Reimbursement of global account management charges was likewise held not to constitute consideration for technical or included services, again following earlier years' rulings; the addition was deleted. Lease line charges were not treated as royalty because the payment did not amount to consideration for use of, or right to use, a process under the Act or treaty; the addition was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether receipts from freight and logistic support services were chargeable as fee for technical services or fee for included services under the Act and the tax treaty; (ii) whether reimbursement of global account management charges was chargeable as fee for technical services or fee for included services; (iii) whether lease line charges were chargeable as royalty under the Act and the tax treaty.

Issue (i): Whether receipts from freight and logistic support services were chargeable as fee for technical services or fee for included services under the Act and the tax treaty.

Analysis: The issue was treated as a recurring one and had already been decided in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. In the absence of any change in facts or law, the earlier consistent view was followed. The services were held not to satisfy the statutory or treaty requirements for fee for technical services or fee for included services.

Conclusion: The addition on this account was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reimbursement of global account management charges was chargeable as fee for technical services or fee for included services.

Analysis: This issue was also covered by earlier orders in the assessee's own case for preceding years. The same factual matrix continued, and the reimbursement was not regarded as consideration for technical services or included services.

Conclusion: The addition on this account was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether lease line charges were chargeable as royalty under the Act and the tax treaty.

Analysis: The issue had been decided in earlier years in the assessee's favour, and the same view had been reiterated in subsequent proceedings. The payment was not treated as consideration for use of, or right to use, a process so as to fall within royalty. The contrary treatment made in the assessment order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The addition on this account was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the substantive transfer-pricing and treaty characterization issues that were adjudicated, resulting in relief to the assessee on all three contested additions.

Ratio Decidendi: In a recurring tax dispute, where the facts and legal position remain unchanged, prior coordinate-bench decisions in the assessee's own case should be followed, and receipts not meeting the statutory or treaty tests cannot be characterised as fee for technical services, fee for included services, or royalty.

---