Shared services payments held outside royalty definition; no withholding tax obligation arose under the India-UK treaty.

Payments made under a shared services arrangement for global brand, communications, technology and knowledge-management support were examined against Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal held that internal support, guidance, common standards and knowledge-sharing, without transfer of copyright, intellectual property, or any right to exploit such rights, did not constitute royalty. It followed its earlier view in the assessee's own and connected matters and rejected the argument that the character of the payments changed because the services related to brand or technology support. The payments were therefore outside the treaty definition of royalty and no tax deduction at source was required under section 195.

---

---

Issues: Whether payments made under the shared services arrangement for global brand, global communications, and global technology/knowledge management were royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA and therefore liable to tax deduction at source under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The payments were examined against the treaty definition of royalty and the nature of the services. The arrangement was found to concern internal support, guidance, common standards, communications, brand strategy, technology support, and knowledge-sharing within the network, without transfer of copyright, intellectual property, or any right to exploit such rights. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own and connected matters and held that the character of the payments did not change merely because the services related to brand, communication, or technology support. The plea based on mutuality was not examined in the section 195 proceedings, and the reimbursement aspect was treated as academic once the payments were found not to be royalty.

Conclusion: The payments were not royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA and the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed because the remittances under the shared services agreement were held to fall outside the treaty definition of royalty, leaving no withholding obligation on the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Payments for internal network services that do not involve transfer of copyright or any exploitable intellectual property are not royalty merely because they relate to brand, communication, technology, or knowledge-management support.

---