https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775055 Receipts from providing e-invoicing platform services were not fees for technical services under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA because the Indian affiliate received only a non-exclusive licence to use the proprietary platform, while the software, source code and underlying rights remained with the provider. The training and support were limited to operating the platform for reselling and delivering the provider's services, and did not transfer technical know-how, experience or skill that could be independently applied after the contract ended. Applying the "make available" test, the Delhi HC held that mere use of a technologically driven service is insufficient unless the recipient is enabled to use the technology independently in future. The FTS characterisation failed. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Feb 2026 15:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775055 Receipts from providing e-invoicing platform services were not fees for technical services under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA because the Indian affiliate received only a non-exclusive licence to use the proprietary platform, while the software, source code and underlying rights remained with the provider. The training and support were limited to operating the platform for reselling and delivering the provider's services, and did not transfer technical know-how, experience or skill that could be independently applied after the contract ended. Applying the "make available" test, the Delhi HC held that mere use of a technologically driven service is insufficient unless the recipient is enabled to use the technology independently in future. The FTS characterisation failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775055