Customs clearance services don't qualify as fees for technical services under Income Tax Act and India-USA DTAA

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal regarding addition on account of sale of logistic services treated as fees for technical services (FTS) under the Income Tax Act and India-USA DTAA. The tribunal held that FTS requires rendition of specialized knowledge, skill, and expertise with a "make available" condition enabling transfer of specialized knowledge. Customs clearance rules being in public domain and statutory regulations do not constitute specialized skill. Creating global workforce ethos following common code also does not qualify as FTS. The tribunal distinguished software development issues citing SC precedent in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence case.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered were:

• Whether the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 22 January 2025 were barred by limitation under Section 144C(12) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently whether the final assessment order dated 23 January 2025 was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
• Whether the fee for freight/logistic support services received for services rendered outside India constituted "Fees for Technical Services" (FTS) or "Fees for Included Services" (FIS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
• Whether the reimbursement of Global Account Management (GAM) charges received constituted FTS/FIS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA.
• Whether the reimbursement of lease line charges constituted "royalty" under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA.
• Whether the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act was justified.
• Whether initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act was valid in the absence of adequate satisfaction being recorded for such initiation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Limitation of DRP Directions and Jurisdiction of Assessment Order

The appellant contended that the DRP's directions were issued beyond the statutory timeline prescribed under Section 144C(12) of the Act, rendering both the directions and the consequential final assessment order without jurisdiction and bad in law. The record does not indicate that this preliminary issue was adjudicated in detail by the Tribunal, as the main focus of the order was on the substantive taxability of the receipts in question. The Tribunal treated this ground as general in nature and did not provide a separate analysis or ruling on this procedural objection, effectively proceeding to decide the appeal on the merits of the substantive issues.

Taxability of Freight/Logistic Support Services as FTS/FIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The dispute centered on whether the fee for freight/logistic support services received by the non-resident assessee for services rendered outside India qualified as FTS/FIS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The legal framework requires that for income to be taxed as FTS/FIS, it must involve the rendering of managerial, technical, or consultancy services, and under the DTAA, the "make available" condition must be satisfied, i.e., the service must enable the recipient to apply the technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes independently.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal relied heavily on its own prior decisions in the assessee's case for earlier assessment years, which had consistently held that such freight/logistic support services did not constitute FTS/FIS either under the Act or the DTAA. The Tribunal cited the principle that the mere provision of services, without a transfer of technical knowledge or skill enabling the recipient to perform such services independently, does not meet the "make available" requirement. The Tribunal also referred to the Delhi High Court's observations, which clarified that FTS is concerned with the transfer of specialized knowledge, skill, or expertise, and that the mere furnishing of service is insufficient.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the nature of services provided-consolidation or forwarding of air and ocean freight, distribution management, vendor consolidation, cargo insurance, purchase order management, and customized logistics information-were rendered from outside India and did not involve imparting specialized knowledge or skills to the Indian recipient.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found no material change in the factual or legal matrix compared to earlier years, and the revenue did not dispute this. The Tribunal held that the income from such services could not be treated as FTS/FIS, following its own prior orders and the binding precedent from the High Court.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's position was to keep the issue alive for higher appellate forums, but did not present any new arguments or evidence to distinguish the current year from earlier years. The Tribunal noted the absence of any change in facts or law and the lack of any contrary binding precedent.

Conclusion: The addition made by the AO treating the freight/logistic support services as FTS/FIS was deleted.

Taxability of Reimbursement of Global Account Management Charges as FTS/FIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The same legal provisions and interpretative principles applied as above. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions in the assessee's own case, which had held that reimbursement of GAM charges did not constitute FTS/FIS.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated that the reimbursement of GAM charges was not in the nature of FTS/FIS, as it did not involve the transfer of technical knowledge or skill to the Indian entity.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the facts were identical to those in earlier years, where the issue had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and in the absence of any distinguishing facts or legal developments, deleted the addition.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: No new arguments were advanced by the revenue, and the Tribunal found no basis to depart from its previous rulings.

Conclusion: The addition on account of reimbursement of GAM charges was deleted.

Taxability of Reimbursement of Lease Line Charges as Royalty

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue was whether reimbursement of lease line charges constituted "royalty" under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal referred to its prior decisions, which had held that such payments did not amount to royalty.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that in earlier years, it had held that lease line charges were not in the nature of royalty, and this view had been upheld by the High Court in the case of the payer, where it was held that such payments were not royalty and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was warranted.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the reimbursement of lease line charges did not involve transfer of any rights in respect of a copyright, patent, or similar property, nor did it involve the use of any process or equipment in a manner that would attract the definition of royalty.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal, applying the same reasoning as in earlier years, deleted the addition.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue did not present any new arguments or evidence to support a different conclusion.

Conclusion: The addition treating reimbursement of lease line charges as royalty was deleted.

Levy of Interest under Section 234B

The ground relating to the levy of interest under Section 234B was treated as consequential in nature, dependent on the outcome of the substantive additions. As the substantive additions were deleted, the levy of interest would be recomputed accordingly.

Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 270A

The ground challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A was held to be premature and did not require adjudication at this stage, as the initiation of penalty is a separate proceeding that would be dealt with independently.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• On the core question of FTS/FIS, the Tribunal quoted with approval the following principle from the Delhi High Court:

  "FTS is firstly concerned with rendition of specialized knowledge, skill, expertise and know-how. It is principally concerned with a transfer of knowledge, skill and expertise. Those three attributes must be those which are possessed by the service provider and are distinctive and special qualities that it possesses... The second facet of FTS is the 'make available' condition and which envisions an enablement or transfer of specialized knowledge and skill... The mere furnishing of service would not be sufficient to categorise the service as FTS. It would have to be necessarily accompanied by a transfer of expertise and which would consequently enable the recipient of service becoming skilled in its own right and empowered to perform those functions independently."

• The Tribunal found that the services provided did not involve imparting specialized knowledge or skills, nor did they "make available" any such expertise to the recipient in India. The rules and regulations pertaining to customs clearance were in the public domain and did not constitute specialized knowledge. The creation of a global ethos or workforce was not FTS.
• With respect to lease line charges, the Tribunal reiterated that such payments were not in the nature of royalty, in line with its own prior decisions and the High Court's ruling in the payer's case.
• The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency, noting that the issues had been decided in favour of the assessee for multiple preceding years, with no change in facts or law, and the revenue had not brought forth any new precedent or distinguishing feature.
• The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting all substantive additions and holding that the receipts in question were not taxable as FTS/FIS or royalty under the Act or the India-USA DTAA.
• Interest and penalty grounds were treated as consequential or premature and not adjudicated on merits.

Core Principles Established:

• The "make available" condition is central to the characterization of services as FTS/FIS under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. Mere provision of services, without imparting the ability to perform such services independently, does not satisfy this condition.
• Payments for standard logistic, management, or connectivity services rendered from outside India, without transfer of specialized knowledge or skill, do not constitute FTS/FIS or royalty under the Act or the DTAA.
• Consistency in tax treatment is to be maintained where facts and law remain unchanged and prior decisions have not been overturned or distinguished by higher judicial forums.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

• Directions of the DRP and the final assessment order were not quashed on jurisdictional grounds; the Tribunal proceeded to decide on merits.
• Receipts for freight/logistic support services rendered outside India are not taxable as FTS/FIS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA.
• Reimbursement of Global Account Management charges is not taxable as FTS/FIS under the Act or the DTAA.
• Reimbursement of lease line charges is not taxable as royalty under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA.
• Levy of interest under Section 234B is consequential and to be recomputed in light of the deletion of substantive additions.
• Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A is premature and not adjudicated at this stage.

---