Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 751 - ITAT DELHIFee for technical services under Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore - Assessee made available technical knowledge, skill or know-how to Indian customer and as such, the payments made to it were to the nature of fee for technical services – Held that:- Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Raymond Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2002 (4) TMI 891 - ITAT MUMBAI], wherein it has been held that word 'which' occurring in the article after the word 'services' and before the words 'make available' not only describes or defines more clearly the antecedent noun ('services') but also gives additional information about the same in the sense that it requires that the services should result in making available to the user technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. Thus, the normal, plain and grammatical meaning of the language employed, in our understanding, is that a mere rendering of services is not roped in unless the person utilising the services is able to make use of the technical knowledge etc. by himself in his business or for his own benefit and without recourse to the performer of the services in future - The fruits of the services should remain available to the person utilising the services in some concrete shape such as technical knowledge, experience, skills, etc. In the present case, assessee provided testing services and issued test reports. These reports cannot be said to make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes which enabled the Indian company to acquire the services to apply the technology contained therein. Therefore, these receipts cannot partake the fees for technical services as defined in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Singapore. The samples were sent by Indian company, M/s. Effem India for testing in Singapore. These samples were comprising of broken rice, maize, pet food, wheat gluten sodium caseinate, poultry meal, soya protein isolate, copra press cake, etc. These samples were tested to detect the presence of mycotoxin - No substantial question of law arises for our consideration, particularly, because Revenue was unable to point out any perversity in finding – Decided in favor of Assessee.
|