Introduction
In the case of Laserwords US Inc. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax[i], Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench (‘ITAT’), while adjudicating upon the issue of taxation of the sales commission received by a non-resident company from its Indian subsidiary, held that such commissions could not be taxed in India. The ITAT passed the decision after duly considering the provisions of the Indo-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’).
Brief Facts
Laserwords US Inc., a US-based non-resident company (‘Assessee’), was engaged in e-publishing services categorized as information technology-enabled services (‘ITES’).
The Assessee had entered into a marketing agreement (‘Agreement’) with its Indian subsidiary, SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd (‘Holding Company’), to provide e-publishing services, inter alia, and certain other services to earn sales commission.
The assessing officer (‘AO’), upon scrutiny, noted certain discrepancies in the Assessee’s income tax return and initiated assessment through the issuance of a notice under s. 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). After a detailed examination, the AO concluded that the Assessee's sales commission was considered a ‘fee for included services’ under a. 12(4) of the DTAA. Hence, the same was taxable in India.
Held
Upon thoroughly examining the agreement and the nature of activities undertaken by the Assessee, the ITAT observed that the aforementioned activities constituted purely marketing services and did not meet the definition of 'fees for included services' under s. 9(1) of the Act and a. 12(4) of the DTAA. Thus, upon having made the above observation, the ITAT ruled that the sales commission should not be taxable in India.
Our Analysis
It is a settled principle that for purposes of DTAA, ‘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) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for which a payment described in paragraph 3 is received; or (b) make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design”[ii]
In distinguishing the nature of the Assessee's activities as marketing rather than technical or consultancy, the ITAT ensures that income classifications adhere strictly to the defined categories of the DTAA. This decision underscores the importance of clear service definitions in international agreements and their pivotal role in tax classification. Such meticulous adherence to the DTAA provisions is essential for ensuring that tax liabilities are accurately determined in cross-border transactions.
This case sets a crucial precedent for how services are classified and how related payments are interpreted under the DTAA, reinforcing the need for tax authorities to follow the DTAA's strict definitions when assessing tax obligations.
End Notes
[i] [2024] 162 taxmann.com 543 (Chennai - Trib.)
[ii] Income Tax Department, Publication on ‘Royalty and Fees for Technical Services-Taxpayer Information Series-44’, available at 579_ Set Royalty and fees For Technical Services-IOP.pmd (incometaxindia.gov.in)
Authored by Shreya Manchanda, Advocate 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.