Network fees from Netherlands company to Indian subsidiary ruled not taxable as technical services

ITAT Mumbai held that network fees received by a Netherlands company from its Indian associated enterprise did not constitute fees for technical services (FTS) under the Income Tax Act or India-Netherlands DTAA Article 13. The assessee operated global business infrastructure including IT networks and e-commerce portals, earning network transportation fees from its Indian subsidiary. The AO treated these receipts as FTS subject to taxation in India, despite the assessee's contention that they constituted business income not taxable absent a permanent establishment. The DRP upheld the AO's position. However, ITAT Mumbai, following its coordinate bench decisions in similar cases for assessment years 2017-18 and 2020-21, directed deletion of the addition, ruling that network fees did not fall under FTS provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of network fees earned by the assessee as fees for technical services (FTS) and royalty under the Income-tax Act and under Article 13 of the India Netherlands DTAA.
2. Whether the network fees received by the assessee from Damco India Private Limited (DIPL) should be taxed as business income or as FTS/royalty.
3. Validity of the assessment order passed beyond the limitation period.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Treatment of Network Fees as FTS and Royalty:

The primary issue in both appeals is whether the network fees earned by the assessee during the year should be treated as fees for technical services (FTS) and royalty under the Income-tax Act and under Article 13 of the India Netherlands DTAA. The assessee argued that the network fees are business income and should not be taxed in India due to the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) disagreed, treating the fees as FTS and royalty, thus subjecting them to tax.

2. Taxability of Network Fees from DIPL:

The assessee company is engaged in logistics and freight forwarding and has earned income from services provided to its Indian AE, DIPL, as network transportation fees. The AO noted that the transportation fee received from DIPL was subjected to TDS as FTS but was not offered to tax in the return of income. The assessee contended that the network fees are not a charge and hence do not come under the purview of FTS under Article 12 of the India Netherlands Tax Treaty. The AO, however, taxed the network fees as FTS and royalty, relying on Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.

The DRP upheld the AO's decision, referencing similar cases from previous assessment years where the network fees were treated as FTS. Despite the Tribunal's decisions in favor of the assessee in identical cases for earlier years, the DRP confirmed the AO's action.

3. Tribunal's Findings:

The Tribunal reviewed the orders of the authorities and previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It noted that the network fees received by the assessee from Damco India were neither in the nature of royalty nor FTS. The Tribunal emphasized that the network fees are business income under Article 7 of the India Netherlands DTAA and are not taxable in India in the absence of a PE.

The Tribunal cited its previous judgments, including ITA No. 7447/Mum/2017 for AY 2013-14, ITA No. 545/Mum/2022 & ITA No. 2240/Mum/2022 for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20, and ITA No. 909 & 937/Mum/2023 for AYs 2017-18 and 2020-21, where it had deleted similar additions. The Tribunal reiterated that the network fees do not fall within the definition of FTS or royalty under Article 12 of the DTAA, as they do not involve the rendering of technical or consultancy services or the making available of technical knowhow.

4. Validity of Assessment Order:

The assessee also challenged the validity of the assessment order on the grounds that it was passed beyond the limitation period provided under Section 144C read with Section 153 of the Act. However, the assessee later conceded that it did not want to press this ground, and the Tribunal dismissed it as not pressed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned addition on account of receipt of network fees from DIPL, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case in previous assessment years. The appeals were partly allowed, with the Tribunal confirming that the network fees are not taxable as FTS or royalty under the Income-tax Act or the India Netherlands DTAA. The issue regarding the validity of the assessment order was dismissed as not pressed. The order was pronounced on 14th August 2024 at Mumbai.

---