Withholding tax on seconded employees: salary reimbursement was not fee for technical services under the India-US treaty framework.

A payer may invoke Section 195(2) to seek determination of withholding tax on remittances to a non-resident, even where the entire payment is not shown to be taxable, and a nil deduction certificate may be considered on that basis. Reimbursement of salary cost for seconded employees was treated as reflecting an employer-employee arrangement, supported by control and supervision by the Indian company. Because the payments were salary reimbursements and the treaty "make available" requirement was not satisfied, the amount was not fee for technical services or fee for included services under the Income-tax Act or the India-US DTAA, so no tax was deductible at source.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking determination of tax liability on remittance to a non-resident was maintainable and whether the payer could seek a nil deduction certificate. (ii) Whether reimbursement of salary cost paid to a foreign entity for seconded employees constituted fee for technical services or fee for included services chargeable to tax in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the India-US DTAA.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking determination of tax liability on remittance to a non-resident was maintainable and whether the payer could seek a nil deduction certificate.

Analysis: Section 195(1) and Section 195(2) operate together, and a payer who considers that no sum chargeable to tax is embedded in the remittance may approach the authority under Section 195(2) for determination. The application is by the payer, not the recipient, and maintainability does not depend on the entire remittance being taxable. On the facts, the request for remittance on a cost-to-cost basis without deduction at source was properly placed for consideration.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed, and the direction to issue the certificate was legally sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether reimbursement of salary cost paid to a foreign entity for seconded employees constituted fee for technical services or fee for included services chargeable to tax in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the India-US DTAA.

Analysis: The arrangement showed indicia of an employer-employee relationship between the Indian company and the seconded employees, including control, supervision, disciplinary authority, and deduction of tax under Section 192. The governing treaty provisions required more than mere rendering of technical or consultancy services: the service had to make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or similar capability to the recipient. Mere provision of technical manpower or day-to-day services was insufficient. On the facts, the reimbursement represented salary cost and not consideration for technical services or included services.

Conclusion: The remittance was not taxable as fee for technical services or fee for included services, and the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source on that amount.

Final Conclusion: The appeal by the Revenue failed because the assessee's remittance for seconded employees did not attract withholding tax under the treaty-based framework applied by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: For remittances under Section 195, the payer may seek determination under Section 195(2) even where the whole sum is not taxable, and salary reimbursement for seconded employees is not taxable as fee for technical services or included services unless the treaty's make-available requirement is satisfied.

---