TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the cross-charges received by the petitioner from its Indian associated enterprise were taxable as fees for technical services or royalty, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a nil withholding tax certificate under Section 197 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The services described in the agreement were in the nature of corporate, managerial, oversight, support and coordination functions. The record did not show any transfer of technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process to the recipient so as to satisfy the "make available" requirement under Article 13(4) of the India-UK DTAA. Mere performance of sophisticated or specialized support services, or any incidental benefit to the recipient, was not enough. The Court also found no material to sustain the view that the recipient acquired any copyright or other rights in software or tools so as to bring the receipts within royalty. The rejection of the petitioner's claim was therefore unsustainable, and the binding effect of the Supreme Court's ruling on software payments could not be ignored merely because a review petition was pending.
Conclusion: The cross-charges were not taxable as fees for technical services or royalty under the DTAA, and the petitioner was entitled to the nil withholding tax certificate. The impugned order was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to issue the certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: For treaty purposes, services are taxable as fees for technical services only when they actually make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to the recipient, and payments for software or tools are not royalty unless the recipient acquires copyright or comparable rights.
TaxTMI 
