Foreign database subscription fees were not royalty or technical fees, so no withholding tax obligation arose under treaty rules.

Subscription and access fees for a foreign web-based database were treated as neither royalty nor fees for technical services because the user received only limited access, with no transfer of copyright or licence to exploit the material, and no imparting of technical, industrial, commercial or scientific experience under the treaty. The India-USA DTAA, being more beneficial, prevailed over the Act, so the receipt was not taxable in India on that footing. As the sum was not chargeable to tax in India, no withholding obligation arose under section 195, and the consequential treatment as an assessee in default, together with interest under sections 201(1) and 201(1A), could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether subscription and access fees paid to a foreign database publisher constituted royalty or fees for technical services within section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(3)(a) of the India-USA DTAA. (ii) Whether, on that basis, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was liable as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A).

Issue (i): Whether subscription and access fees paid to a foreign database publisher constituted royalty or fees for technical services within section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(3)(a) of the India-USA DTAA.

Analysis: The payments were for access to a web-based database and publications maintained outside India. The access was limited to subscribed users, with no transfer of copyright or licence to exploit the material. The information was available to any subscriber willing to pay and did not amount to imparting of technical, industrial, commercial or scientific experience in the treaty sense. The treaty provision, being more beneficial, prevailed over the Act, and the receipt did not fall within royalty or fees for technical services.

Conclusion: The payment was not taxable as royalty or fees for technical services in India, and the assessee was not liable to tax deduction on that footing.

Issue (ii): Whether, on that basis, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was liable as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A).

Analysis: Section 195 applies only where the sum paid is chargeable to tax in India. Since the underlying payment was held not taxable in India, no withholding obligation arose. Consequently, the foundation for treating the assessee as in default and levying interest failed.

Conclusion: The assessee was not required to deduct tax at source, and the demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could not survive.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the additions made on account of TDS default and consequential interest were deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 195 applies only to sums chargeable to tax in India, and subscription access to a foreign database without transfer of copyright or imparting of treaty-defined experience does not constitute royalty or fees for technical services.

---