Concurrent factual findings and the "make available" test kept foreign service payments outside fees for technical services treatment.

Concurrent findings based on the agreement, invoices, bank records and remittance details showed that the payment was made to GIA USA, and the references to GIA Hong Kong were treated as clerical errors. The court held that the services did not transfer technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how to the assessee, so the payment did not qualify as fees for technical services under the India-USA DTAA on a "make available" basis. In an appeal under section 260A, such findings could not be disturbed absent perversity, misreading of evidence or legal error, and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal raised any substantial question of law from the concurrent findings that the remittance was made to GIA USA, the treaty benefit under the India-USA DTAA was available, and the services did not amount to fees for technical services on a "make available" basis.

Analysis: The record showed that the invoices were issued by GIA USA, the remittance was made to the offshore bank account owned by GIA USA, and the references to GIA Hong Kong in the statutory forms were treated by the fact-finding authorities as clerical errors. On those facts, the lower authorities held that the assessee had contracted with GIA USA and that the certificates issued were only the result of service rendered, without any transfer of technical knowledge, experience, skill, or know-how to the assessee. The High Court found these to be concurrent findings of fact based on the agreement, invoices, bank records, and remittance details, and held that no perversity, no misreading of evidence, and no legal error giving rise to a substantial question of law was shown.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish any substantial question of law. The finding that the remittance was to GIA USA and that the payment did not constitute taxable fees for technical services under the treaty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concurrent findings of fact based on documentary evidence cannot be disturbed unless they are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by a legal error; where the service does not "make available" technical knowledge, the payment does not become fees for technical services merely because the service was rendered by a specialized foreign entity.

---