Royalty characterization and section 234B interest denied for CRS and Altea receipts, while permanent establishment findings stood.

CRS booking fees and Altea system receipts were held not taxable as royalty under the Act or the treaty, following the assessee's earlier years' decisions and the jurisdictional High Court's consistent view that the CRS receipts were business income. The permanent establishment and attribution questions remained decided against the assessee, as prior appellate findings had already upheld the existence of a PE in India and the related profit attribution. Interest under section 234B was held not leviable because the relevant income was subject to tax deduction at source and no advance tax liability arose on the income assessed in India.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the CRS booking fees and the Altea system receipts were taxable as royalty under the Act and the treaty; (ii) whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India and whether profits were attributable to it; (iii) whether interest under section 234B was leviable.

Issue (i): Whether the CRS booking fees and the Altea system receipts were taxable as royalty under the Act and the treaty.

Analysis: The receipts from the CRS activity were covered by the assessee's earlier years' decisions, where the booking fee was held to be taxable as business income and not as royalty. The same view had been followed by the jurisdictional High Court for prior years. As regards the Altea system, the receipts were also held not to constitute royalty under either the Act or the treaty, as the earlier coordinate bench decisions on identical facts had attained finality.

Conclusion: The receipts from both the CRS activity and the Altea system were not taxable as royalty, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India and whether profits were attributable to it.

Analysis: The existence of a permanent establishment in India and the attribution question were already decided against the assessee in the earlier proceedings. The jurisdictional High Court had upheld the finding that the assessee had a permanent establishment in India, and the Supreme Court had treated the PE controversy as no longer requiring further adjudication. The attribution aspect had also attained finality on the basis of the prior appellate findings.

Conclusion: The permanent establishment and attribution issues were decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest under section 234B was leviable.

Analysis: The levy of interest under section 234B was held unsustainable where the income was subject to tax deduction at source and the assessee had no advance tax liability on the income assessed in India. The prior decisions in the assessee's own case were followed, including the jurisdictional High Court's view that the interest could not be sustained on such facts.

Conclusion: Interest under section 234B was not leviable, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the royalty and interest issues, while the findings on permanent establishment and attribution were sustained, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Receipts are not taxable as royalty where the facts and treaty provisions, as consistently construed in the assessee's own earlier years, show that the payment is for business income rather than use of process or equipment, and interest under section 234B cannot be levied where the income is already subject to tax deduction at source and no advance tax liability arises.

---