Beneficial ownership of service fee receipts secured treaty protection where control and active service role were proved.

Treaty protection under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA depended on whether the assessee was the beneficial owner of service fee receipts or merely a conduit under a back-to-back arrangement. The factual record showed that the assessee rendered services, retained dominion and control over the receipts, and played an active role in delivery, so the beneficiary-owner test was satisfied and agency or pass-through characterisation was not established. In the absence of perversity in the concurrent findings, no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was a beneficial owner of the service fee receipts and entitled to treaty benefit under Article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, or merely a conduit / pass-through entity on a back-to-back arrangement with its group company.

Analysis: The appellate record showed that the assessee rendered services to the Indian entity and retained dominion and control over the fee receipts. The finding that there was no back-to-back arrangement was supported by the material on record, including email communications showing the assessee's active and meaningful role in the delivery of services. The applicable test for denial of beneficial ownership required the assessee to be shown as an agent or conduit, and the factual findings did not support that characterisation. In the absence of perversity in the findings of fact, no substantial question of law arose in the revenue's appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The assessee was held to be the beneficial owner of the receipts and entitled to treaty protection, and the revenue's challenge to that finding was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent factual findings and sustained the view that treaty benefits were available to the assessee, resulting in dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding that the recipient of income has dominion and control over the receipts and is not established to be an agent or conduit cannot be displaced in appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 absent a substantial question of law.

---