Make available test under India-UK DTAA excludes mere access to software platform and user training from technical fees.

Receipts from automated e-invoicing software and related services were held not taxable as fee for technical services because the arrangement did not satisfy the make available test under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act or Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA; the recipient obtained only access to the platform and user training, not technical knowledge, source code or independent capability to perform the service itself. The computation sheet and consequential demand were remitted for re-examination because the figures required verification. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A was not interfered with, and interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234F was held consequential and not separately disputable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether receipts from provision of e-invoicing software and related services were taxable as fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA, including whether the make available condition was satisfied; (ii) Whether the computation sheet and consequential demand required re-examination; (iii) Whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A was premature; (iv) Whether interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234F could be charged.

Issue (i): Whether receipts from provision of e-invoicing software and related services were taxable as fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA, including whether the make available condition was satisfied.

Analysis: The receipts arose from automated e-invoicing services rendered through the assessee's proprietary platform. The decisive question was whether the services made available technical knowledge, skill, know-how or process to the recipient so that it could use the technology independently after the service ended. The finding was that the recipient obtained only access to the platform and training to use it, not the source code, technology or technical capability embedded in the service provider's system. Training for use of the platform did not amount to transfer of technical knowledge or enable the recipient to render the service on its own. The earlier jurisdictional ruling on identical facts was followed.

Conclusion: The receipts were not fee for technical services and were not chargeable on that basis. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the computation sheet and consequential demand required re-examination.

Analysis: The assessee pointed out mistakes in the computation sheet, which were reflected in the notice of demand. Since the matter depended on verification of the computation and the underlying figures, the proper course was to direct re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted for re-examination and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes. This issue was partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A was premature.

Analysis: The penalty challenge was directed against initiation of proceedings, and no basis was shown to interfere with that stage-wise action. The proceedings were treated as premature at that stage.

Conclusion: The penalty ground was rejected. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234F could be charged.

Analysis: Interest under the cited provisions follows the statutory scheme and is consequential in nature, so no independent relief was warranted on these grounds.

Conclusion: The interest grounds were rejected. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was interfered with only to the extent of the primary transfer-pricing characterization issue and the limited verification direction on the computation sheet, while the penalty and interest challenges failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Training or access to a proprietary platform does not amount to fee for technical services unless it makes available technical knowledge, skill, know-how or process enabling the recipient to independently perform the service.

---