Fees for technical services under the India-US DTAA require making available technical know-how, not mere manpower support.

Manpower support receipts were treated as fees for technical services only if the arrangement clearly made available technical knowledge, skill, know-how or processes under section 9(1)(vii) and Article 12(4) of the India-US DTAA; on the facts stated, mere support or collaboration was insufficient. The reimbursement from PhonePe required fresh factual verification because the record did not clearly establish the nature of the secondment and service arrangement. Interest under sections 234A and 234B was described as consequential and mandatory, while the disputed additional interest component needed identification of the correct charging provision. TDS credit was to be examined and allowed if admissible, and the penalty challenge under section 270A was premature at the initiation stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether receipts from provision of manpower support services to Flipkart were taxable as fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(4) of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. (ii) Whether reimbursement of costs received from PhonePe was taxable as fee for technical services or required fresh factual examination. (iii) Whether interest under sections 234A and 234B and the disputed interest charge could be interfered with. (iv) Whether TDS credit had to be granted and whether initiation of penalty under section 270A(1) could be challenged.

Issue (i): Whether receipts from provision of manpower support services to Flipkart were taxable as fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(4) of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: The service arrangement did not show transfer of technical knowledge, skill, know-how, process, plan or design so as to satisfy the treaty requirement of making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes. Mere provision of support services or collaboration-related activity did not, by itself, amount to imparting enduring technical capability to the recipient. The receipt was therefore not brought within the treaty definition of fees for included services.

Conclusion: The addition relating to Flipkart receipts was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reimbursement of costs received from PhonePe was taxable as fee for technical services or required fresh factual examination.

Analysis: The factual position on the nature of the arrangement was not clear, since different stands had been taken regarding secondment and the place and manner of rendering services. The record was insufficient for a final determination on merits, and the matter required verification from the agreement and supporting material.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (iii): Whether interest under sections 234A and 234B and the disputed interest charge could be interfered with.

Analysis: Interest under sections 234A and 234B is consequential and mandatory, while the other interest component required re-examination only to identify the applicable provision and correct levy, if any.

Conclusion: The challenge to interest under sections 234A and 234B was dismissed, and the other interest issue was remanded.

Issue (iv): Whether TDS credit had to be granted and whether initiation of penalty under section 270A(1) could be challenged.

Analysis: The TDS credit claim required examination by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. The penalty challenge was premature at the stage of initiation.

Conclusion: TDS credit was directed to be examined and granted if admissible, while the penalty challenge was rejected as premature.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the principal transfer-pricing/treaty characterization issue concerning Flipkart receipts, obtained a remand on the PhonePe and related factual issues, and the appeal was otherwise disposed of in part.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 12(4) of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, services are taxable as fees for included services only when they clearly and demonstrably transfer technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes so that the recipient is enabled to perform the function independently.

---