Fees for technical services under a DTAA can be taxable despite no permanent establishment when know-how is made available.

Under the India-Singapore DTAA, Article 7 could not by itself tax the foreign consultant's receipt merely because it lacked a permanent establishment in India; the relevant enquiry had to shift to the specific article on fees for technical services. The feasibility and bankable project report was treated as technical services because it conveyed technical knowledge, experience, skill and know-how by covering project, market, financial, operational and risk factors for presentation to financiers. As a result, the payment fell within Article 12(4)(b), attracted tax in India and required withholding at source under the treaty framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the remittance to the foreign consultant was taxable as business profits under Article 7 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Agreement in the absence of a permanent establishment in India. (ii) Whether the payment for the feasibility and bankable project report constituted fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(b), attracting deduction of tax at source and grossing up.

Issue (i): Whether the remittance to the foreign consultant was taxable as business profits under Article 7 of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Agreement in the absence of a permanent establishment in India.

Analysis: Article 7 applies to business profits, but its operation is displaced where a specific article separately deals with the relevant item of income. The consultant had no permanent establishment in India, so Article 7 by itself could not sustain taxation in India. The real question therefore had to be examined under the specific provision governing fees for technical services.

Conclusion: The payment was not to be decided only under Article 7, and the absence of a permanent establishment did not by itself exempt the remittance from tax.

Issue (ii): Whether the payment for the feasibility and bankable project report constituted fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(b), attracting deduction of tax at source and grossing up.

Analysis: The report was not a bare advisory note. It covered market prospects, fibre supply, technology, environment, mill organization, training, operating costs, capital requirement, financial returns, and project risks, and was prepared to vet and present the project to financial institutions. On these facts, the services made available technical knowledge, experience, skill and know-how within Article 12(4)(b). Once the payment fell within Article 12, the concessional tax limit under Article 12(2) applied, and the obligation to deduct tax at source followed. The contention based on business profits therefore failed.

Conclusion: The payment was fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(b) and was taxable in India with tax deductible at source at the prescribed rate.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's objection to the relief granted by the first appellate authority succeeded, and the withholding-tax direction was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a DTAA separately governs a payment as fees for technical services, the absence of a permanent establishment does not bring the receipt within the business-profits article; if the service makes available technical knowledge, skill, experience or know-how, the payment is taxable under the specific article and attracts withholding.

---