TAXATION OF ROYALTY AND FEES FOR
TECHNICAL SERVICES
Nihar Jambusaria
jnihar@rediffmail.com
nihar.jambusaria@ril.com
1
TAXATION OF ROYALTY
•
WNS acquiring Marketics for $65 million.
•
Facebook acquiring Friendfeed for $50 million
4
•
Vodafone acquiring Hutch for $19.3 billion.
•
Google Inc. acquiring Youtube Inc. for $1.65 billion.
5
TAXATION OF ROYALTY AS PER THE
INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT)
6
Use of IPRs
Imparting of
information on
working of IPRs
Transfer of
rights in
respect of IPRs
Royalty
Imparting information
on Technical/
Industrial/
Commercial/ Scientific
knowledge, experience
or skill
Use of Industrial/
Commercial/
Scientific
Equipment except
equipments
mentioned in 44BB
7
Scope of Section 9(1)(vi)
Status of Payer
The Government
Coverage
In all cases
No exception
•
Resident of India
Excluded only if
•
•
Non-resident
Included only if
•
For business / profession of
payer outside India
For source of income of
payer outside India.
For business / profession of
payer in India.
For source of income of
payer in India.
Taxability of Royalty
Section
Royalty
Section 44DA
If arising out of PE/ fixed place of profession
Section 115A
No PE and in pursuance of agreement with the government or
Indian concern
Section 28
Other cases e.g.. Resident making payment to a Resident
WHETHER ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE FROM EXPORT SALES COME
UNDER THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE??

Aktiengesellschaft Kuhnle Kopp & Kausch W. Germany vs. BHEL
(262 ITR 513 Madras High Court)


As far as export sales is concerned, that amount is also exempt under section
9(1)(vi) of the Act. Since the source of the royalty is from the source situate
outside India, the royalty paid on export sales is not taxable.
CIT vs. Havells India Ltd. (ITA No.55 & 57/2012, 21 May 2012) in which the Delhi
High Court held –

We are making a distinction between the source of the income and the source
of the receipt of monies. In order to fall within the second exception provided
in section 9(1)(vii)(b), the source of income and not receipt should be
situated outside India.
10
GENESIS OF EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (V), (VI) AND (VII)


Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries’ (288 ITR 408 SC)

Offshore services should be rendered in India AND used in India for income to be
regarded as accruing in India

There must be a direct link with India

There must be sufficient territorial nexus to warrant imposition of tax
Explanation added by Finance Act 2007, w.e.f 1.6.1976 updated by Finance
Act, 2010

Expl is inserted stating that where income is deemed to accrue or arise in India
u/s. 9(1)(v),(vi) and (vii), such income shall be included in Total Income of
Non-resident whether or not Non-resident has a place of business or Business
Connection in India or has rendered services in India.
11
EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VI) OF THE ACT
Description
IPRs
►
The transfer of all or any rights in
respect of:
►
The imparting of any information
concerning the working or use of:
The use of any:
The imparting of any information
concerning
Patent, invention, model, design, secret
formula or process or trademark or similar
property
►
►
The use or right to use
►
The transfer of all or any rights in
respect of
Technical, industrial, commercial or
scientific knowledge, experience or skill
Industrial, commercial or scientific
equipment
Copyright, literary, artistic or scientific
work
Services in connection with the above
12
Explanation 4


Explanation 5

•
Transfer of all or any rights includes right for or to use a computer software (including granting of
a license) irrespective of the medium
Includes consideration in respect of any right, property or information, whether or not—
•
the possession or control is with the payer;
•
it is used directly by the payer;
•
the location is in India
Explanation 6


"process" includes transmission by satellite , cable, optic fibre, etc. whether or not secret
Retrospective w.e.f. 1 June 1976
14
No re-opening of completed assessments on account of retrospective clarificatory
amendments if:

•
•
•
•

Assessment proceedings completed before 1 April 2012; and
No notice for reassessment been issued prior to 1 April 2012.
Assessment or any other order which stands validated due to the clarificatory amendments would
be enforced.
(Letter F. No. 500/111 12009-FTD-l (Pt.) dated 29 May 2012)
No withholding under section 194J on transfer of software to a resident where:
 Software acquired on subsequent transfer without any modification;
 Tax has been deducted on payment on any previous transfer;
 Transferee obtains a declaration that the tax has been deducted and PAN of the transferor.
Effective from 1 July, 2012.
(Notification No. 21/2012 dated 13 June 2012)
15
DOMESTIC PROVSIONS VS. DTAA – WHICH
WILL PREVAIL?

B4U International Holdings Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3326/Mum/2006 dated
28 May 2012)

Coming to the agrument of the Learned Departmental Representative that the
amendment to the Finanace Act, 2012 changes the posititon, we find that there is
no change in the DTAA between India and USA. Thus, the amendments have no
effect on our decision.
DTAA provisions if beneficial to the assessee will reign
over the provisions of the Act
Tax Treaty
Income-tax Act
Section 44DA
Net Basis @ 40%*
Section 115A
Gross Basis @ 25%*
*Plus applicable surcharge & Education Cess
Where PE
exists
Article 7
Net Basis @ 40%
Where NO PE
exists
Article 12
Gross Basis
At treaty rates
ARTICLE 12: ROYALTY DEFINITION
The term ―royalties as used in this article means payments of any kind received
as a consideration
 for the use of, or the right to use:
• any copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph
films, or films or tapes used for radio or television broadcasting,
• Patent and trademark,
• plan, design or model,
• secret formula or process,
• industrial, commercial or scientific equipment
 or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience

The term ―royalties as used in this article means payments of any kind
received as a consideration
 for the use of, or the right to use:
• copyright of literary, artistic, or scientific work including cinematograph
films,
• any patent, trade mark,
• design or model,
• plan, secret formula or process,
 or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific
experience

22

Comparison of definitions: UN Model definition (as given below) v. OECD
Model definition (part in bold fonts are included only in UN Model and not in
OECD Model):

Means payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the
right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including
cinematograph films, or films or tapes used for radio or television
broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula
or process, or for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial or
scientific equipment or for information concerning industrial, commercial or
scientific experience


As per OECD Model
As per UN Model
Considerati
on for use or
right to use





copyright of literary, artistic, or scientific
work including cinematograph films,
any patent, trade mark,
design or model,
plan, secret formula or process,
or for information concerning industrial,
commercial or scientific experience


Copyright of films or tapes used
for radio or television
broadcasting
industrial, commercial or
scientific equipment
OECD Model
If PE
Exists
UN Model
No
No
If PE
Exists
Article 12 - Royalty
Yes
Yes
Article 7 –
Permanent
Establishment
Yes
Article 14 – If arising on
performance of
independent personnel
from fixed place
Establishment
Article 7- Permanent
Establishment
25
CONTROVERSIES
ON
ROYALTY TAXATION
I Co.
Provides
ship on
time
charter
basis
Facts:
 Assessee is engaged in the business of
shipping. Besides owning ship, it also
charters ships for which it pays hire charges.
Issue:
 Payment made for taking ship on time
charter basis would constitute 'royalty' as
defined under section 9(1)(vi)(b) of the
Payments
Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act)?
F Co,

Assessee contended that ship was not
equipment and consequently there was no
question of right to use of any equipment
which could be construed as royalty

It can be treated as Royalty
 Business Income - Sale of product
 Capital Gain – Sale of capital asset
 Various facets of Software
 Computer software generally described as a programme, or series of programmes, containing
instructions for a computer required either for the operational process (system software) or
for accomplishment of other tasks (application software)
 It can be transferred via variety of medium eg. tape, disc, fibre, wireless etc.
 It can be standardized with a wide range of applications or be tailor made
 It can be integrated in hardware or in independent form
28
Revenue Authorities
 Supply of
software
involves use /
right to use of
following:
 Copyright
 Process
Taxpayers
Characterisation of
receipts from
software supply
Whether
Royalty?
Software supply
 Supply of software
does not involve any
use / right to use of
copyright, patent,
invention or process
Whether
Business
Income?
 OECD MC –There is no
use / right to use of
copyright, patent,
invention or process
 It is business income
not taxable in India in
the absence of any
permanent
establishment in India
 Taxable in India
as royalty on
gross basis
Issue under litigation in a number of cases
29
 The Assessee is a US resident software company engaged in the business of
developing and manufacturing civil engineering software.
 The Assessee has a branch in India. The branch imports the software package in the
form of floppy disks or CDs depending on the requirements of their customers.
 The software is used by private consultants for the design of highways, railways,
airports, ports, and mines. The software was customized and then licensed to Indian
customers.
 The branch of the Taxpayer in India performs services involving interface to
peripheral installation and training.
Held: [Distinction between copyright and copyrighted article]
Consideration
for
Transfer of
Copyright
Royalty
Transfer of
Right to use
the copyright
Royalty
Transfer of
copyrighted
material
No Royalty
Held:
[Disagreement with the Karnataka HC ruling in the case of Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd.]
 In the case of Samsung, it was held that a right to make a copy of the software for the purpose of
storing it in the hard disk of the designated computer and taking backup copy amounts to use of
copyright and, hence, is a royalty transaction.
 According to the Delhi HC in case of Infrasoft Ltd., the right to make such a copy for the purpose of
storage for its own use was only incidental to the facility extended to make use of the copyrighted
product for the internal business purpose of the customer.
 This process was necessary to make the program functional and to have access to it and is integral
to the use of the copyrighted product.
 This is qualitatively different from the right contemplated by the royalty provision as it does not
amount to acquiring a copyright in the software.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ADIT vsTII Team Telecom International (60 DTR 177) (Mum Trib)
Ericsson (2011)16 taxmann.com371(Del HC)
Novell Inc v. DDIT (2011) 16 taxmann.com 186 (Mum ITAT)
Motorola Inc, (95 ITD 269)(Delhi SB)
ADIT v. Tata Communications Ltd. (ITA 1473/Mum/2009)
DassaultSystems K.K. [2010-TIOL-02-ARA-IT]
Solid Works Corporation (Mum) (Trib)
DIT v. Infrasoft Limited [2013] (Delhi) 39 taxmann.com 88
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Samsung Electronics (2011) 16 taxmann.com 141 (KarHC)
Sunray Computers (2011) 16 taxmann.com 268 (KarHC)
AcclerysKK, In re e (2012-TII-10-ARA-INTL)
Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd. (AAR)
Millennium IT Software Ltd. (2011) 14 taxmann.com 17
Microsoft Corporation vs. ADIT (2010-TII-141-ITAT-DEL-INTL)
GracemacVs ADIT (ITA Nos 1331 1336/Del/2008)
 Majority treaties of India do not explicitly include ‘compute software’ in the
definition of Royalty
 Specific language including ‘computer software’ in the royalty definition in
India’s treaty with the following countries :







Malaysia
Morocco
Namibia
Russia
Trinidad & Tobago
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
34
 Supply of integrated equipment comprising hardware and software where
the supply of software is inextricably linked to supply of the hardware and,
both, the hardware and the software, cannot function without each other
 Judicial view emerging :
 Revenue authorities should not split the transaction to separately tax
the payment for software
 Further, purchase of software is akin to purchase of a copyrighted
article and not purchase of any rights in the software
 Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. v. ITO (92 ITD 366)
 Motorola, Ericson and Nokia 96 TTJ 1 (Del SB)
 SunaryComputers (P) Ltd 204 Taxman 1 (Karnataka) (HC)
35
No DTAA with India
DTAA with India
DTAA with India
Under Income-tax Act,
1961
Treaty definition
specifically covers
‘computer software’
Treaty definition DOES NOT
specifically cover ‘computer
software’
Taxpayers to withhold tax
on software payments
Taxpayers to withhold tax
on software payments
Litigative
Taxation of Satellite/ Transponders payments –
Mechanics
Outside India
Satellite
Company
India
Uplinking of signal
Transponder
hire charges
Broadcasting
issues
Foot print Area
Signals
downlinked by
Co.
37
Facts:
 The assessee, engaged in broadcasting television channels from
India, received transponder service from Intelsat, a tax resident
of USA, in lieu of a fee.
 The assessee approached to the AO under 195(2) of I-T Act for
Nil withholding tax certificates, for such payment of fees to
Intelsat, which was denied by the AO and held that the payments
made are in nature of Royalty
Held:
 The introduction of Explanation 6 by Finance Act 2012 w.r.e.f.01-6-1976 is clarificatory
in nature and, therefore, it does not amend the definition of royalty per se
 Any payment for use or right to use of process is in the nature of royalty as per the
provisions of Article 12(3) of DTAA as well as per the Explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vi) of
the Act.
 Since the term 'process' is not defined under the DTAA, therefore, by virtue of Article 3(2)
of the India-US DTAA, the meaning of term 'process' as defined in the Act would apply for
this purpose
 The use of transponder by the assessee for telecasting/broadcasting the Programme
involves the transmission by the satellite including up-linking, amplification, conversion
for downlinking of signals which falls in the expression 'process' as per Explanation 6 of
section 9(1)(vi) and thus payment is in nature of ‘Royalty’
 Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 340 (Del)
– Pre Amendment
 Channel Guide India Ltd. v. ACIT, 25 taxmann.com 25(Mum Trib) –
Post Amendment
 B4U International Holdings Ltd. v. DCIT, 23 taxmann.com 372 –
Post Amendment
 ISRO Satellite Centre, In re (2008) 307 ITR 59 (AAR) - Pre
Amendment
New Skies Satellite NV [2009] 121 ITD 1 (Delhi) (SB) - Pre
Amendment
Asianet Communications Ltd (2010) 38 SOT 158 (Mad) – Pre
Amendment
Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. [ TS-179-ITAT-2014] – Post
Amendment
TAXATION
OF
FEES
FOR TECHNICAL
SERVICES AS PER THE
ACT
Section 9(1)(vii) of the act provides that the income by the way of FTS shall be deemed to accrue
or arise in India, if it is payable by
 The government, or
 A resident, except where the fees are payable
 for services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India, or
 for the purpose or making or earning any income from any source outside India
 A non-resident where the fees are payable.
 for services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person in India , or
 for the purpose or making or earning any income from any source in India.
Meaning of ‘Fees for Technical Services’
Managerial service
Provision of
services of
technical or
other personnel
Consideration
including any
lump sum
consideration
Technical
services
Consultancy
services
Does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project
undertaken by its recipient or consideration which would be chargeable under the head
salaries.
Managerial services
 The Oxford Dictionary gives the following meanings to the term “manage”: have control
of, be manager of, operate a tool etc., contrive, deal with person tactfully.
 The term “managerial” was observed by AAR in case of Intertek services Indian P. Ltd. 175
Taxman 375 as -
 Manager is a person who manages industry or business or who deals with
administration or the person who organizes other people’s activity. Managerial
services essentially involves controlling, directing or administrating the business
 Managerial & Consultancy Services can be overlapping: - Raymond Ltd. V/s DCIT (86 ITD
791)
Technical services
 In the absence of any definition in law, general meaning needs to be adopted
 Oxford Dictionary: of a particular subject, craft, etc. Requiring specialized knowledge to be
understood (professional qualification may not be necessary) of applied science and
mechanical art; according to strict legal interpretation.
 Deduction in respect of royalties, etc., from certain foreign enterprises—technical services—
whether managerial services are covered by the term 'technical services'—managerial
services do not include any use of tools and machinery while technical services should include
the use of tools and machinery. Hence not covered, - J.K. (Bombay)Ltd. V. CBDT (1979) 118 ITR
312 (Delhi HC).
 Delivery service requires human intervention and thus, rendering services via sophisticated
technology does not amount to technical services CIT v/s Bharti Cellular Limited (330 ITR 239)
Consultancy services
 “Consult” means to seek information or advice. It can be written or oral
 Provision of advise by someone, such as a professional who has special qualifications
 May overlap with technical and managerial services, if provided by a consultant
 Hyderabad Tribunal decision in the case of Tecumseh Products (I) Ltd. v. DCIT [2007] 13 SOT
489 – relevant observations:
“technical service does not include providing some technical knowledge for manufacturing
alone. Technical knowledge includes, management or consultancy services.”
Provision of services of technical or other personnel
 Caborandum Co. V CIT (1977) 108 ITR 335 -SC
Where an American Company had deputed its employees to an Indian Company. Indian
Company entered into employment Agreement with deputed employees, the Indian
Company paid salaries to these employees which were under the control of Indian
company, held it is taxable as salary and not FTS.
 Mannesmann Demag Lauchhammer V. CIT (1988) 26 ITD 198 – HYD ITAT
Where a machinery was imported and post warranty period technical faults were found and
and subsequently an agreement was entered with the German company who sent an
engineer to India for repair. Payment was made on a per day basis by the Indian Co. along
with cost of travel, boarding and lodging it was held to be ‘Provision Of services of Technical
personnel’ since it specifically includes in Explanation to S.9(1)(vii).
Issues


Skycell Communications Ltd. v/s DCIT (251 ITR 53)
Madras High court held that the fees received for providing a cellular mobile
telephone services was for use of ‘standard facility’.

The fact that the assessee has installed sophisticated technical equipment in
the exchange to ensure connectivity to its subscriber, does not on that score,
make it a provision of a technical service to the subscriber.

It was contended that the mere collection of a fee for use of a standard facility
provided to all those willing to pay for it, does not amount to the fee having
been received for technical services

Millennium Infocomm Technologies Ltd V/s. ACIT (117 ITD 114)

ITAT held that providing of hosting space in servers located abroad does not result in
providing any technical services and will not be considered as Fees for Technical Services.

Cargo Community Network (p.) Ltd (AAR No. 668 of 2006)
Assessee engaged in the business of providing access to internet based Air cargo portal
and payments were made by resident of India for use of portal.
AAR took a harsh view that payments for accessing portal hosted in Singapore was both
royalty (for use of equipment) and FTS in terms of subscribers and help desk support in
India.


Payments for mineral oil exploration and related activities
 Applies to NR engaged in the business of providing : Services/ facilities in
connection with prospecting or extracting or production of mineral oils and
supplying plant and machinery on hire used/to be used in prospecting or
extracting or production of mineral oils.
 Deems total income of non resident @10% of gross receipts, effective tax rate
to Non-resident - 4%
 Section 44BB shall apply only if the payments are not covered under the
definition of Fees for Technical Services
Applicability of Section 44BB
Services should not be covered under Section 9(1)(vii)
OR
If covered, should fall within exclusion of 9(1)(vii) – ‘’consideration
for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken
by the recipient’’
AND
 Services/facilities should be in connection with prospecting or
extracting or production of mineral oils

OHM Ltd [TS-879-HC-2012(Del)]
 Sec 44BB is a special provision whereas Sec 44DA is broader and more general in
nature. Since the specific provision excludes the general provision, provision of
geophysical services like, procuring, processing and interpreting data in respect of
an offshore exploration block in India attracts Section 44BB and not 44DA.

Decisions in favor - 44BB applies to cases in which the services (including technical
services) are rendered in relation to the prospecting for or exploration of mineral
oil. :

ACIT vs. Paradigm Geophysical(P) Ltd. (117 TTJ 812) (Del)
DCIT vs. Schlumberger Seaco Inc (50 ITD 346)
DIT( Int’l Tax) vs. Jindal Drilling Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 3416/Del/2003)


AS PER
DTAA
54
Meaning of FTS under Tax Treaties
FTS covers managerial, technical or consultancy services akin to the ITA, but may not have the same
exclusions as under the ITA.
India-Singapore Tax Treaty – Relevant Extract
"fees for technical services" as used in this Article means payments of any kind to any person in consideration
for services of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature (including the provisions of such services through
technical or other personnel) if such services:
a) ...’’
 Definition of FTS under various treaties may be broadly categorized as under –
Type 1 – Absence of clause on FTS eg. Mauritius, Myanmar, Philippines,
Type 2 – Definition largely at par with ITA eg. Japan
Type 3 – Definition contains further condition like ‘make available’ eg. USA, UK, Canada, Netherlands,
Singapore
Type 4 – Protocol to Treaty - restricts the scope of definition through Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause eg.
Belgium, France, Hungary, Israel, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland 10
Fees for included services

DTAAs signed by India having the concept of FTS/ FIS along with the make
available‘ clause (such as Canada, Cyprus, USA, Netherlands, UK)

Deals with Technical Services but, coverage is of FIS

Definition of FIS (Refer for example Indo - US Treaty)
―For purposes of this article, “fees for included services” means payments of any
kind to any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or
consultancy services (including through the provision of services of technical or
other personnel) if such services:
 a)………….
 b)make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or
processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a plan or technical
design.”
Fees for Included Services
MoU of the India USA Tax Treaty:
 Technology will be considered "made available" when the person acquiring the
service is enabled to apply the technology
 The fact that the provision of the service may require technical input by the person
providing the service does not per se mean that technical knowledge, skills, etc.,
are made available to the person purchasing the service, within the meaning of
paragraph 4(b)
 Similarly, the use of a product which embodies technology shall not per se be
considered to make the technology available
 If the services do not ―make available‖ technical knowledge, etc., then, they are
outside the ambit of FIS Article and may not be taxable. However, the same may
be considered as business income and taxable if the foreign company has a PE in
India
Fees for included services
Understanding Concept of FIS
Extract from Raymond Ltd. V/s. DCIT [86 ITD 791](Mum)
―….. 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
technical knowledge, experience, skill, etc. must remain with the person utilising the
services even after the rendering of the services has come to an end. A transmission of the
technical knowledge, experience, skills, etc. from the person rendering the services to the
person utilising the same is contemplated by the Article. Some sort of durability or
permanency of the result of the “rendering of services” is envisaged which will remain at
the disposal of the person utilising the services. 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.”
Fees for included services
MOU signed between India and USA is binding on other countries Tax Treaty?
Favourable orders
 IntertekTesting Services India P Ltd. (307 ITR 418) (AAR)
 CESC Ltd. (275 ITR 15) (Kolkata)
 Boston Consultancy Group P Ltd .(94 ITD 31) (Mum)
 Mckinsey& Co. Inc. (99 ITD 549)
 Raymond Ltd. (80 TTJ 120) (Mum)
 Bharti Axa(326 ITR 477) (AAR)
Unfavourable orders
 AAR ruling in the case of PerfettiVan MelleHolding B.V.(AAR No. 869 of 2010) dated 9
December 2011
 AAR ruling in the case of Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd(AAR No. 833 of 2009) dated 17 January
2012
Facts
Whether
‘Make
Available’?
Decision
Technical assistance to enable service recipient to
design, construct and operate a plant to
manufacture aluminum. Training for application of
technical know how India – US DTAA
y
Hindalco Industries
Ltd. v. ACIT [(2005) 94
TTJ 944 (Mum)]
Payment for services to make available executive
personnel for development of general
management, finance and purchasing, marketing
and assemble/ manufacturing activities under the
management provision agreement India –US DTAA
N
P No. 28 of 1999
AAR –242 ITR 0208
Strategy consultancy services such as marketing
and sales strategy, business strategy and portfolio
strategy India –Singapore DTAA
N
[DCIT v. Boston
Consulting Group
PteLtd 93 TTJ 293
(Mum)]
Facts
Whether ‘Make
Available’?
Decision
Service of the grading and certification
reports for diamonds and other
articlesIndia –Singapore DTAA
N
Payment for providing training to crew
members
India –UK DTAA
N
Sahara Airlines Ltd v. DyCIT –83
ITD 11
Payment for operational and support
services India –Netherland DTAA
Y
PerfettiVan MelleHolding B.V. AAR No. 869 of 2010)
Data processing services agreement
India –UK DTAA
N
R. R. Donnelley India Outsource
(P) Ltd. –335 ITR 122
Publicity, advertisement
services
India –USA DTAA
N
DIT vsSheraton Ltd. –313 ITR
267
and
sales
Diamond Services International
P Limited v. Union of India
(Bom) –304 ITR 201