Introduction
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’), while differentiating between technical know-how and management services, has, in the matter of Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV v. ACIT[i]*, *held that rendering management services does not fall within the meaning of ‘royalty’ as defined in the a. 12(4) of the India-Netherlands double taxation avoidance agreement (‘DTAA’). Therefore such services are not taxable in India.
Brief Facts
Van Oord Dredging & Marine Contractors BV (‘Appellant’), registered in the Netherlands, signed a service agreement with its subsidiary in India, Van Oord India Private Limited (‘VOIPL’) to provide personal and organization support, operational assistance, quality assurance, IT Support, marketing and administrative services relating to marine construction activities.
The Appellant charged approximately Rs. 39 crores to VOIPL for such services and claimed these as reimbursement of costs without any markup. However, the assessing officer (‘AO’) considered these charges as ‘royalty’, which was deemed to be taxable in India as per the DTAA.
Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’), contending that the services provided to VOIPL did not qualify as royalty under the DTAA, and were merely reimbursement of actual costs, while the AO contended that these fees constituted royalty payments as per a. 12(4) of the DTAA.
The order passed by the AO was subsequently upheld by the DRP, thus compelling the Appellant to file an appeal before the ITAT for the determination of the issue mentioned below:
Issue
Were the management service fees received by the Appellant taxable as royalty in India under the DTAA?
Held
The ITAT, after reviewing the nature of the transaction and the services provided by the Appellant, held that the consideration received under the service agreement was based on the allocation of actual cost and could not be classified as payment towards ‘royalty’. Thus the appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed.
It was further observed by the ITAT that the services rendered by the Appellant did not involve the imparting of technical knowledge or expertise, and thus, did not qualify as royalty under the DTAA. Further, the fees charged by the Appellant were merely reimbursements of the actual costs incurred, and the same had been duly certified by the auditors.
Our Analysis
This judgment brings clarity to the determination process of the nature of payments in cases involving services rendered by foreign entities to Indian entities. It underscores the necessity for the Assessing AO to thoroughly determine the nature of transactions before levying taxes to adjudicate issues correctly.
End Note
[i] [2024] 161 taxmann.com 308 (Mumbai - Trib.)
Authored by Priyam Gandhi, Intern at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.