Facts of the Case
M/s SNC Lavalin International Inc., a non-resident
Canadian company, was engaged in providing consultancy services for
infrastructure projects. The company entered into an agreement with the
National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for infrastructure development
projects funded by the World Bank.
Under the agreement, the assessee was required to
provide technical drawings, technical reports, and detailed project reports
relating to the widening and development of National Highways, including NH-2
and NH-5. The services included:
- Preparation of detailed project reports;
- Technical studies regarding feasibility and viability of modern
technologies;
- Development of technical plans and designs;
- Cost estimation exercises;
- Environmental, rehabilitation and resettlement studies;
- Consultancy services relating to highway infrastructure
development.
The assessee received consideration from NHAI for
rendering these services.
The assessee contended that the consideration
received constituted “Fees for Included Services” under Article 12(4) of
the India–Canada DTAA and was taxable at 15%.
The Assessing Officer disagreed and held that the
receipts constituted Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Section
9(1)(vii) read with Section 115A of the Income-tax Act and were taxable at 20%.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the
assessee’s contention. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision, the Revenue filed
appeals before the Delhi High Court.
Issues Involved
- Whether the amount received by the assessee for providing
consultancy and technical services to NHAI was taxable under Section
9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act or under Article 12 of the India–Canada
DTAA?
- Whether the services rendered by the assessee amounted to “Fees for
Included Services” under Article 12(4)(b) of the India–Canada DTAA?
- Whether the development and transfer of technical plans and
technical designs by the assessee attracted Article 12(4)(b) even if
ownership rights in such plans/designs were not transferred?
- Whether interest under Section 234B was chargeable in the facts of
the case?
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)
The Revenue argued that:
- The services rendered by the assessee were technical and
consultancy services.
- Such services were taxable as Fees for Technical Services under
Section 9(1)(vii) read with Section 115A of the Income-tax Act.
- Article 12(4)(b) of the India–Canada DTAA should be interpreted to
mean that the expression “make available” qualifies all the services
mentioned in the provision.
- Unless technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or
processes were made available to NHAI for independent future use, the
assessee could not claim the benefit of Article 12(4)(b).
- The technical drawings and designs supplied by the assessee were
prepared only for specific highway projects and could not be treated as
technology made available for other projects.
- Therefore, the receipts should not be classified as “Fees for
Included Services” taxable at the concessional DTAA rate.
- Interest under Section 234B was also chargeable.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)
The assessee contended that:
- It had provided technical consultancy services involving
preparation and transfer of technical plans, reports and designs.
- Article 12(4)(b) specifically covers services consisting of the
development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design.
- The provision contains two independent categories:
- Making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how
or processes; and
- Development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design.
- The services rendered by the assessee clearly fell within the
second category.
- Transfer of ownership rights in the technical designs was not
required under Article 12(4)(b).
- Once technical plans and designs were developed and delivered to
NHAI, the requirements of Article 12(4)(b) stood satisfied.
- Consequently, the receipts were taxable as “Fees for Included
Services” under the India–Canada DTAA at the treaty rate of 15%.
Court Findings
The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ruled in favour of the assessee.
The Court observed that:
- There was no dispute that the assessee had rendered technical and
consultancy services.
- The services involved the development and transfer of technical
plans and technical designs.
- Article 12(4)(b) of the India–Canada DTAA covers two distinct
categories:
- Services that make available technical knowledge, experience,
skill, know-how or processes; and
- Services consisting of the development and transfer of a technical
plan or technical design.
- The Revenue's attempt to read the phrase “make available” as
qualifying the entire provision was not supported by the language of the
treaty.
- Such an interpretation would render certain portions of the clause
redundant and create ambiguity.
- The Court relied upon the explanatory material and examples
contained in the treaty framework and noted that the provision
specifically contemplates development and transfer of technical plans or
technical designs as a separate category.
- The assessee had supplied technical drawings, designs and project
reports to NHAI, which squarely fell within Article 12(4)(b).
Accordingly, the Tribunal had correctly held that
the consideration received by the assessee was taxable under the DTAA as Fees
for Included Services.
Important Clarification by the Court
The Court made a significant clarification
regarding the meaning of the expression “transfer” in Article 12(4)(b).
According to the Court:
- The term “transfer” does not require absolute transfer of ownership
rights in the technical plan or design.
- It is sufficient if technical drawings, plans or designs are
provided by a resident of one contracting state to a resident of the other
contracting state for use and benefit.
- Article 12(4)(b) does not require transfer of all proprietary
rights, title or interest in the technical plan or design.
- Even where a technical design or plan is supplied only for use in a
specific project and ownership remains with the creator, the provision can
still apply.
This clarification became an important precedent in
determining whether consultancy and engineering services involving technical
plans and designs qualify as “Fees for Included Services” under treaty
provisions.
Court Order
- The Delhi High Court answered the substantial question of law in
favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
- The Court held that the consultancy services involving development
and transfer of technical plans and designs fell within Article 12(4)(b)
of the India–Canada DTAA.
- The receipts were taxable as “Fees for Included Services” under the
treaty and entitled to the treaty rate of taxation.
- The Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
- The issue relating to Section 234B interest was already covered by
the earlier Delhi High Court decision in Director of Income Tax vs.
Mitsubishi Corporation, and therefore did not survive for separate
consideration.
Relevant
Sections / Articles Involved
Income-tax
Act, 1961
- Section 9(1)(vii) – Fees for Technical Services
- Section 115A – Tax on Fees for Technical Services received by
Non-Residents
- Section 234B – Interest for Default in Payment of Advance Tax
India–Canada
Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
- Article 12(4) – Fees for Included Services
- Article 12(4)(b) – Development and Transfer of Technical Plan or
Technical Design
- Article 12 – Taxation of Fees for Included Services
Link to download the order -
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2010:DHC:9846-DB/AKS22092010ITA10272009_160316.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment