US company's passenger system solution payments not taxable as technical services under section 9(1)(vii)

ITAT Mumbai held that payments for Passenger System Solutions received by a US company from an Indian entity were not taxable as Fees for Technical Services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The tribunal ruled that the services were standard services rendered using software technology, not technical services, as no technology was made available to the Indian purchaser. The services were provided using the US company's software and data center without transferring technical knowledge or skills to the recipient.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the income earned by the assessee, a USA-based company, from providing Passenger System Solutions (PSS) to Indian airlines, primarily National Aviation Company of India Limited (Air India), is taxable in India as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the USA.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The relevant legal provisions include section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, which defines "fees for technical services," and Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA, which addresses "Royalties and Fees for Included Services." Article 12 specifies that fees for included services encompass payments for rendering technical or consultancy services that either make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or design.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Tribunal examined whether the services provided by the assessee involved making available technical knowledge or skills to the recipient, as required under Article 12 of the DTAA. The Tribunal noted that the services rendered by the assessee were standard services using software technology, without any human intervention in the processing of data. The assessee's software was not made available to NACIL or other customers, as it was operated from the assessee's data center in Atlanta, USA.

Key evidence and findings:

The Tribunal relied on the nature of the services provided, which included reservations, fares and pricing, departure control, message switching, flight information, baggage reconciliation, internet booking, and frequent flyer services. The services were provided remotely via the assessee's data center, and no technology or technical knowledge was transferred to the Indian airlines.

Application of law to facts:

The Tribunal applied the provisions of Article 12 of the DTAA, emphasizing that for services to be considered as fees for included services, they must make technology available to the recipient. Since the assessee's services did not involve transferring any technical knowledge or skills to NACIL, they did not qualify as fees for included services under the DTAA.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The revenue argued that the services should be considered technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12 of the DTAA. The Tribunal, however, found merit in the assessee's argument that the services were standard and did not involve making technology available to the recipient. The Tribunal also noted that similar rulings by the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) and the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal had been reversed by higher courts.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the services provided by the assessee did not qualify as fees for included services under Article 12 of the DTAA, as they did not make any technology available to the recipient. Consequently, the income from these services was not taxable in India as FTS.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

The Tribunal cited the CIT(A)'s observations, emphasizing that for a payment to qualify as fees for included services under the tax treaty, it is necessary that the services make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents supporting this interpretation, including decisions from the Bombay High Court and various ITAT benches.

Core principles established:

The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that for services to be taxable as fees for included services under the DTAA, they must involve making technology available to the recipient. The provision of standard services using technology without transferring technical knowledge does not meet this criterion.

Final determinations on each issue:

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer, concluding that the income from Passenger System Solutions was not taxable in India as FTS under either section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. Consequently, the appeals by the revenue for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2021-22 were dismissed.

---