Training services without making available technical knowledge may fall outside fees for technical services, defeating TDS disallowance.

Training payments for soft skills, leadership and general management were treated as not involving transfer of technology or making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes. On that basis, the service was said to fall outside fees for technical services under the treaty framework, so no tax deduction obligation arose and the section 40(a)(i) disallowance was deleted. The note also states that additional legal grounds may be admitted where the relevant facts are already on record; here, those grounds were admitted and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with supporting material and precedents to be examined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for payments made towards general training services to the Singapore group entity was sustainable for want of tax deduction at source. (ii) Whether the additional grounds raised by the assessee could be admitted and, if so, how they should be dealt with.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for payments made towards general training services to the Singapore group entity was sustainable for want of tax deduction at source.

Analysis: The payment was for employee training in soft skills, leadership and general management. The earlier decision in the assessee's own case for the immediately relevant year had already held that such training did not involve transfer of technology or any service making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes. On that basis, the service did not fall within the scope of fees for technical services under the treaty framework, and no obligation to deduct tax arose on the payment.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the additional grounds raised by the assessee could be admitted and, if so, how they should be dealt with.

Analysis: Additional grounds of a legal nature may be admitted where the relevant facts are already on record and the claim can be considered for correct determination of tax liability. Applying that principle, the additional grounds were admitted. Since the factual matrix was not fully examined at the lower levels, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication, with the assessee to substantiate the claim and the relevant precedents to be considered.

Conclusion: The additional grounds were admitted and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed on the main disallowance issue and the remaining new claim was restored for adjudication, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Training services that merely improve soft skills or managerial abilities, without making available technical knowledge or technology to the recipient, do not constitute fees for technical services for treaty purposes and cannot sustain a TDS-based disallowance on that ground.

---