Marker testing and double haploid seed development services to affiliate treated as DTAA Art.12(4) royalty; IT reimbursements not FTS

Marker testing and Double Haploid (DH) services were examined under Art. 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA to determine whether receipts constituted "royalty." The ITAT held that the services went beyond mere reporting because the non-resident converted seeds into DH plants and supplied enhanced seeds for commercial exploitation, thereby transmitting technology/scientific experience and information to the Indian affiliate; the treaty royalty definition was satisfied and the related grounds were dismissed. Separately, amounts recovered on a cost-to-cost basis for routine IT support sourced from a third-party service provider were treated as pure reimbursements, and the "make available" threshold for FTS was not met; the receipts were held not taxable as FTS under s. 9(1)(vii).

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether consideration received for marker analysis and doubled haploid activities, including the related reporting, constituted "royalties" under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA as payments for "information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience", and was therefore taxable in India.

(ii) Whether amounts received towards IT support services, recovered on a cost-to-cost basis from the Indian affiliate for services actually rendered through a third-party IT provider, constituted "fees for technical services" under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA, particularly in light of the "make available" requirement; and whether such receipts were taxable in India.

(iii) Whether the challenge to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A required adjudication at this stage.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Tax characterisation of marker analysis and doubled haploid activities-royalty under DTAA

Legal framework: The Court applied Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA defining "royalties", including payments for "information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience". The Tribunal treated this as a distinct limb of "royalty", separate from consideration for use/right to use copyright or other intellectual property.

Interpretation and reasoning: On the facts found, the Tribunal held that the activities were not mere routine "testing" but involved "marker analysis" and doubled haploid processes that required specialised scientific methods, chemicals, technology, and extended experimentation (including processes spanning about 18 months for doubled haploids). The Tribunal accepted that the Indian affiliate lacked the requisite technology and resources and relied on the assessee's scientific capability. It found that the outputs shared-test reports and the results of conversion into doubled haploid plants/seeds-encapsulated the assessee's scientific experience and knowledge and had direct commercial and industrial ramifications for breeding programs, including assessment of traits and development of improved lines for commercial exploitation.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's reliance on "make available" as a controlling criterion for royalty, holding that Article 12(4) (royalties) does not impose a "make available" condition; the relevant question was whether the consideration was for "information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience". It also rejected the contention that the payment was for software access (through the group tool used for communication and uploads), holding that the consideration was not for use/right to use any copyright in the tool but for the information and scientific experience contained in the analysis and reporting uploaded through it. The Tribunal distinguished the decisions relied upon by the assessee on the basis that those matters concerned access/subscription or automated standard services and did not address royalty for "information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience" on comparable facts involving creation and transfer of scientifically enhanced seed outputs and experience-based reports.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that receipts from the marker analysis and doubled haploid activities satisfied Article 12(4) as consideration for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience and were taxable as "royalties". The related grounds challenging such treatment were dismissed.

Issue (ii): Taxability of IT support receipts-whether FTS under DTAA; effect of "make available"; reimbursement character

Legal framework: The Tribunal applied Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA defining "fees for technical services", including the requirement in Article 12(5)(b) that services must "make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes" (or involve development and transfer of a technical plan/design) to be treated as FTS, unless covered by the ancillary-and-subsidiary limb. The Tribunal examined whether the nature of services and the arrangement satisfied this test.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found, on the basis of the service arrangement and conduct, that IT support was effectively provided by a third-party service provider under a master services arrangement, with the recipient raising tickets to the third-party helpdesk, and the third party resolving issues. It held that the assessee merely recovered from the Indian affiliate the third-party charges attributable to it, on a cost-to-cost basis without markup, and thus the receipts were "merely reimbursement" of IT support costs.

The Tribunal further found that the IT infrastructure and equipment remained under the control of the third-party provider, and not under the possession/control of the assessee or the Indian affiliate. On the functional test, it concluded that the recipient was not enabled to solve similar IT issues independently in future and remained dependent on the third party each time; therefore, the technical knowledge/skills/processes were not "made available" to the recipient within the meaning of Article 12(5)(b). The Tribunal treated the recurring and routine nature of the support, and the absence of transfer of technology for future independent use, as decisive. Consequently, the Tribunal held that, since the "make available" clause was not satisfied, the IT support reimbursements could not be taxed as FTS under the treaty.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that receipts towards IT support services recovered on a reimbursement basis were not taxable as FTS under Article 12(5) of the DTAA and therefore could not be brought to tax under section 9(1)(vii) on the treaty analysis adopted. The assessee's grounds on this issue were allowed.

Issue (iii): Adjudication of penalty challenge

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the ground challenging initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A was premature at this stage.

Conclusion: No adjudication was undertaken on the penalty ground.

---