M/S.TEXMO PRECISION CASTINGS UK LIMITED ,COIMBATORE V. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 15/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Texmo Precision Castings UK Limited, a non-resident company, which provided marketing services to its Indian counterpart, TPC India. The dispute centered on whether the income from these services was taxable in India as 'Fees for Technical Services' under the Income Tax Act and the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had earlier treated the income as taxable, leading the assessee to appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after examining the nature of the services and relevant legal provisions, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the services did not meet the 'make available' criteria for FTS and were thus not taxable in India.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29443 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Evolv Clothing Co. P.Ltd Vs. ACIT, Laserwords US Inc. Vs.DCIT, CIT Vs. M/s. Grup ISM Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, India-UK DTAA
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIG.SURESH
• Assessee Lawyers: T. SURYANARAYANA; MANASA ANANTHAN; ADVOCATES
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Transfer pricing; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Double taxation relief; Services rendered outside India; Non-deduction of tax; Tangible material
• Section: 142(1); 195; 13

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी”Ɋायपीठ चेɄई मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी महावीरᳲसह, उपा᭟यᭃएवं᮰ी एस. आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭यके समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.IT(TP)A No.: 15/Chny/2022 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Texmo Precision Castings UK Limited, Post Bag No.5303, Mettupalayam Road, G.N.Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 209. [PAN:AAFCT-4768-C] v. ACIT International Taxation-2(2) Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮकᳱओरसे/Appellant by : Shri T.Surya Narayana & Ms. Manasa Ananthan, Advocates ᮧ᭜यथᱮकᳱओरसे/Respondent by : ShriG.Suresh, JCIT सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 08.07.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, for the assessment year 2016-17, vide order dated 31.01.2022. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.The Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals - (16) [CIT(A)] erred on law, facts and circumstances of the case by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. :-2-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 2.Income from Services rendered outside India for the purposes of earning income outside India is not taxable in India 2.1 The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Appellant has provided Marketing services outside India wherein the end customer is outside India and hence, the source of income lies outside India and is not chargeable to tax in India under section 4 read with section 5 and Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.Marketing Services rendered do not satisfy the 'Make available' criteria under Article 13(4)(c) of the India- UK DTAA 3.1The Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in facts, law and in principle in determining that the amounts received by the Appellant against provision of marketing services under the Marketing Service Agreement satisfies 'make available' criteria and should be taxed as 'Fees for technical Services' under Article 13(4)(C) of the IndiaUK DTAA and subject to tax in India. 4. Selective application of the Principle of Judicial discipline is against the Principle of equity, fair play and natural justice 4.1 The Learned CIT(A) has ignored to analyse the plethora of favorable jurisdictional judicial precedents submitted by the Appellant but instead chose to take a prejudicial approach by placing reliance on the judgement in favour of the Revenue which is distinguishable on facts. 5.The Learned CIT(A)'s findings are based upon surmises, conjectures and suspicion without any cogent and tangible material that establishes the nexus that the Services rendered by the Appellant led to development of new/modified product that can be saleable without any recourse to the Appellant's services. 5.1The Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying upon the case of 'M/s.Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. [2018] 89.taxmann.com 485 (Chennai Tribunal)' without appreciating the factual differences and nature of service which is in contrast with that of the assessee.” 3. Brief facts are that the assessee M/s.Texmo Precision Castings (UK) Limited, is a legal corporation registered as per the laws of United Kingdom(UK), being non-resident corporate assessee in India, is engaged in the business of providing market and support services to the Indian partnership firm M/s.Texmo Precision Castings, India (TPC India) filed its return of income on 02/02/2017 :-3-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring NIL income.The case was selelcted for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) were issued requiring the assessee to furnish necessary details. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that M/s.Texmo Precision Castings ('TPC India') has entered into a Marketing Services Agreement with TPC UK ('Marketing agreement') wherein TPC UK would market TPC India's products offshore and TPC India had agreed to compensate TPC UK which is at arm's length and complies with the transfer pricing regulations for the marketing services. As per agreement, the assessee company is responsible for providing services related to marketing activities involving exploration of new market and customers, new product identification, advice and assistance in understanding customers’ requirements on new products and its pricing. The assessee also submitted that the services are standard marketing support services wherein TPC UK carries out marketing and sales promotion activities, promotes the business of TPC India inter alia, identifying customers and establishing contracts; soliciting inquiries from clients (including prospective clients), appoint advertising agencies to prepare, plan, direct and execute all the advertising of TPC India. The services :-4-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 mentioned in the Schedule-1 of Marketing Services Agreement is as under:- 1.Employ technical and other personnel with written consent from TPC India; 2. Faithfully and diligently engage in the marketing of the current product line of the firm; 3.Prepare a database of potential customers for the product line; 4.Explore the requirement of the potential customers; 5.Contact the customer representatives and analyse their requirements; 6.Faithfully report to the firm of the customer specified requirements including but not limited to the product specifications, design, pricing etc; 7.Procure orders and advise in the negotiation of terms of supply and payment. 5. Therefore, according to the assessee, amounts received for rendering marketing services would not quality as ‘fees for technical services’. Thus, as per India-UK DTAA treaty, the receipts are not taxable in India and hence, claimed refund of TDS made by the TPC India. However, the Ld.AO was not convinced with the reply and according to the AO, the assessee was executing only consultancy services wherein knowledge about client specific design, raw material, manufacturing technique knowledge was made available to TPC India and therefore, the Assessing Officer made estimated addition @25% of total receipts Rs.4,43,33,510/- i.e., Rs.1,10,83,378/- as income received from TPC India, which is in the nature of ‘fees for technical services’ by passing a ‘Draft assessment Order’ u/s.143(3) dated 31/12/2018. Based on the assessee’s intention to file an appeal before the CIT(A), the AO passed a ‘Final :-5-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 Assessment order’ U/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act on 25/02/2019 and confirmed the additions. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO by passing an order dated 30/01/2022. Thus, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Before us, the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that marketing services rendered by the non-resident assessee cannot be said to be included within the meaning of consultancy services. The assessee procured orders on the basis of knowledge and expertise to derive income. He submitted that database collected by the assessee from potential customers were made available to TPC India and the assessee was required to employ technical personnels for providing service to TPC India. He also stated that there was no element of consultation rendered by the assessee and TPC India and thus, services rendered by the assessee cannot be treated as consultancy services.The Ld.DR drew our attention to the para 2 of the “Marketing service agreement”(PB Page No.36 to 47) entered between the assessee and TPC India, which clearly agreed for marketing services as below: “2. MARKETING SERVICES 2.1 From the Effective Date, TPC UK has provided and shall continue to provide the marketing services, to TPC India in :-6-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 consideration for the payment of the Fees by TPC India to TPC UK. The· Parties intend that this Agreement is effective on and from the Effective Date. 2.2 The Parties agree that to enable TPC UK to perform the Marketing Services, ABC India shall provide its product specifications to TPC UK.” 7. Further, the nature of service includes the activities listed out in scheudle - 1 of the Marketing service agreement(supra) and therefore, the services prvoided by the assessee is in the nature of acting as a link between the resident and another party, facilitating the transaction between them, or where the non-resident is directly soliciting business for the resident and generating income out of such solicitation and hence this marketing service cannot be termed as Fees for technical services. 8. Further, the Ld.AR stated that the as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, the marketing services provided by the assessee to TPC India is not a fees for technical services and drew our attention to the section and the explanation 2 thereon: “Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act : Income by way of fees for technical services payable by – (a)the Government; or (b)a person who is a resident, except where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India; or (c)a person who is a non-resident, where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by :-7-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 such person in India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source in India: Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply in relation to any income by way of fees for technical services payable in pursuance of an agreement made before the 1st day of April, 1976, and approved by the Central Government. Explanation 1. - For the purposes of the foregoing proviso, an agreement made on or after the 1st day of April, 1976, shall be deemed to have been made before that date if the agreement is made in accordance with proposals approved by the Central Government before that date.] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 4 (w.e.f. 1.4.1977).] Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this clause, \"fees for technical services\" means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head \"Salaries\". As per the explanation 2 above, the marketing services does not fall under any of the managerial, technical or consultancy services, the nature of service is purely connects the prospective buyer to the TPC India and hence the order of the AO and that of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous and needs to be set aside. In order to support his claim, the Ld.AR relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Evolv Clothing Co. P.Ltd Vs. ACIT [2018] 94 taxmann.com 449(Mad), wherein in the identical facts, their lordships have observed in para 33, which is extracted below: “33. Under Section 9(1)(vii)(b), income by way of fees for technical services payable by a person, who is a resident, is taxable income except where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India. In view of Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vii), technical services :-8-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 means any consideration, including lumpsum consideration, for rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services, including the provision of services of technical or other personnel, but does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient. Service of market survey only to ascertain the demand for the product in the market is incidental to the function of a commission agent of procuring orders and is, in any case, not managerial, technical or consultancy service.” 9. Further, the ld. AR also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in Laserwords US Inc. Vs.DCIT, IT(TP)A No.45/Chny/2021 dated 10/05/2024 , wherein in the similar facts, the tribunal has held that the marketing services cannot be equated with FTS or Fees for included services in para No.8 as extracted below: “8. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. First of all, we noted from the above services reproduced above that the services are in the nature of marketing services. These marking services are rendered by the assessee through agreement dated 01.04.2010 with SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. As per agreement, these services are noted by us in above para 6.1 and also the relevant marketing and sales service in term of agreement between Laser Words Pvt. Ltd., and the assessee i.e., Laserwords US Inc. In our view, these services rendered by assessee in no way can be called as 'fee for included services' whereas these payments are for marked services. We noted from the facts of the case that the assessee has entered into a contract with SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., who consequently entered into contract with end customers located in USA. However, assessee is not party to the master service agreement with the customers. All service contracts with customers in USA are entered by SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., and it is SPI Technology India Pvt. Ltd., who is solely responsible for undertaking and executing the e-publishing work. Here, it is to be clarified that the role of the assessee is limited to liaising with the customers, understanding their workflow requirements and communicating the same to SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., who undertakes the project execution. It is to be clarified that the DRP and the AO wrongly noted that the amalgamation with the assessee and SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., w.e.f. 01.04.2014 whereas actual facts are that the Laserwords Pvt. Ltd., merged with SPI Technologies :-9-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 India Pvt. Ltd., w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., w.e.f. 27.04.2010, who is the end customer of SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. We noted that it is not a disputed fact that assessee receives sales commission as percentage of sales from new customers as well as existing customers on monthly basis. The role of assessee is not limited to identification of prospective / new customers in USA and once customer is on board, the assessee interacts with the customer on a regular basis to understand the customer requirements. Hence, customer acts as a front-end contact point for the customers and the role of the assessee to understand the workflow requirements of the customers and communicate these requirements to the executives located in SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., and for this, assessee charge commission on total sales and disclose this as sales commission. We noted that the nature of work executed on activities carried out cannot be equated with 'fee for included services' as mentioned in 12(4) clause (b) of Indo-USA DTAA and hence, it cannot be taxed in India. It is to be considered as sales commission only. Hence, we delete the addition and allow the appeal of assessee on this issue.” In the factum of the assessee, service receipts is not in the nature of FTS and the same being in the nature of business income, would not be taxable in India in the absence of business connection in India. 10. Further, the Ld. AR stated that the marketing services provided by the Assessee does not satisfy the ‘make available’ criteria as per the DTAA entered between India-UK in Para 4 of Article 13 provides taxability of FTS and reads as follows: “For the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Article, and subject to paragraph 51 of this Article, the term \"fees for technical services'' means payments of any kind of any person in consideration for the rendering of any technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of a technical or other personnel) which: :-10-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 (a) are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for which a payment described in paragraph 3(a) of this article is received; or (b) Are ancillary and subsidiary to the enjoyment of the property for which a payment described in paragraph 3(b) of this Article is received; or (c) Make available technical knowledge, experience, skill know-how or processes, or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design.” 11. In support of the claim of the assessee that the FTS does not include the marketing services without the make available service, the ld.AR relied on the decision of this tribunal in the case DCIT(OSD) Vs. Aspire Systems India (p) Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 699 (Chennai – Trib), wherein the tribunal observed that ‘unless make available the technical knowledge or process or plan, any payment made to non-residents for rendering any services including technical services cannot be treated as FTS’ by holding as under: “8. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of various judicial precedents, held that payment made by the assessee to ASUS and Aspire Systems FZE falls under the exception to section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act, wherein the payments made by the appellant to the non-resident company is for rendering services outside India and thus, same is not deemed to accrue or arisen in India and is not liable for TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that payments made by the appellant to non-resident service providers are directly related to services rendered to the customers outside India and income earned from such customers, in turn form a part of the business. Hence, services are utilized in the business carried on outside India. The ld. CIT(A), further observed that payments made to the non-resident service providers is also for the purpose of making income from any source outside India, because the assessee has entered into a contract for software development services to their customers in USA and for this purpose, :-11-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 availed services of non-resident service provider. Thus, services are utilized for earning income from source located outside India. Therefore, the two conditions for exception to section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act are satisfied and thus, same cannot be treated as fee for technical service for the purpose of section 195 of the Act and thus, payment made to non-residents cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), had also discussed the issue in light of Article 12 of Indo-USA DTAA and argued that unless make available the technical knowledge or processes or plan, any payment made to non- residents for rendering any services including technical services cannot be treated as fees for technical services as per provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Thus, opined that the services rendered by both the non-residents does not fall under the purview of fees for technical services and consequently, payment made to non-residents cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act. Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the revenue is in appeal before us.” 12. The Ld.AR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Grup ISM pvt. Ltd. In ITA 325/2014 dated 29/05/2015, wherein the hon’ble court has stated that where the non-resident is acting as a link between the resident and another party, facilitating the transaction between them, or where the non-resident is directly soliciting business for the resident would not be included unser consultancy services: 7. Gauged from the above excerpts, it is evident that „consultancy services‟ would mean something akin to advisory services provided by the non-resident, pursuant to deliberation between parties. Ordinarily, it would not involve instances where the non-resident is acting as a link between the resident and another party, facilitating the transaction between them, or where the non-resident is directly soliciting business for the resident and generating income out of such solicitation. Indeed, as held by this Court in Panalfa Autoelektrik (supra), since Section 9 is a deeming provision, the interpretation cannot be overly broad in nature. :-12-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 18. In the case at hand, at the outset, this Court clarifies that the mere fact that CGS International confirmed that it received consultancy charges from the assessee would not be determinative of the issue. The actual nature of services rendered by CGS International and Marble Arts & Crafts needs to be examined for this purpose. It would be appropriate to note the details of services provided by the two entities, which were highlighted by the CIT(A): “The agreement dated 5.4.2003 between the appellant and Marble Arts & Crafts provides that the latter will render guidance to the appellant about the procedural aspect of obtaining the payment and check the format and documents of the invoices that are to be submitted for approval to the Works Departments, Abu Dhabi, to receive and periodically check the invoices of the appellant, to submit the invoices to the respective authorities and obtaining their approval, to follow up with various authorities in the Works Department, finance department, banks and other authorities for obtaining the approval of the invoices raised by the appellant... In so far as CGS International is concerned, the agreement dated 25.11.2002 between the appellant and CGS International provided for a consideration payable by the appellant for liaison or solicitation charges. On its part, CGS International will identify, introduce and provide details of industries, companies and individuals, where the appellant can utilize its expertise in the field of architecture, material procurement project management etc. In short, CGS International as per agreement would market the appellant and solicit project management and architectural work in UAE and also, in various parts of the world except India. The consideration is a fee equivalent to 15% of the gross value of the contract to be received from each client, who CGS International has solicited and has rendered services to procure the contract. The appellant has made the payment of Rs.45,31,044/- to CGS International being 15% of a total receipt of $665195 from the Works Department Abu Dhabi. Payments to CGS International are in terms of an earlier agreement entered into with the appellant.\" 19. It is evident that in the transaction between the assessee and Marble Arts & Crafts, the former (non-resident) acted as an agent of the assessee for the purposes of the latter’s dealings with the Works Department, Abu Dhabi, which included coordinating with the authorities in the said department and handling invoices for the assessee. As far as CGS International is concerned, it acts as a liaising agent for the assessee, and receives its remuneration from each client that it successfully solicits for the assessee. Facially, such :-13-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 services cannot be said to be included within the meaning of “consultancy services‟, as that would amount to unduly expanding the scope of the term „consultancy‟. Therefore, this Court does not accept the revenue’s contention that the services provided were in the nature of „consultancy services‟. Consequently, the remittances made by the assessee would not come within the scope of the phrase “fees for technical services‟ as employed in Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. This question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 13. In light of the above submissions, the ld.AR prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. 14. Per contra, the ld.DR stated that the assessee has provided technical details required for the end customers by the assessee to the resident in the marketing services provided and hence the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) is in order and prayed for confirming the same. 15. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record, orders of the lower authorities and decisions of the Hon’ble courts below. Admittedly assessee is a non-resident, legal corporation registered as per the laws of United Kingdom(UK), being non-resident corporate assessee in India, is engaged in the business of providing market and support services to the Indian partnership firm M/s.Texmo Precision Castings, India (TPC India). :-14-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 On perusal of the Marketing service agreement entered between assessee and TPC india, following details of activities are carried out by the assessee : “Marketing and sales promotion activities, promotes the business of TPC India inter alia, identifying customers and establishing contracts; soliciting inquiries from clients (including prospective clients), appoint advertising agencies to prepare, plan, direct and execute all the advertising of TPC India. The services mentioned in the Schedule-1 of Marketing Services Agreement is as under:- 1.Employ technical and other personnel with written consent from TPC India; 2. Faithfully and diligently engage in the marketing of the current product line of the firm; 3.Prepare a database of potential customers for the product line; 4.Explore the requirement of the potential customers; 5.Contact the customer representatives and analyse their requirements; 6.Faithfully report to the firm of the customer specified requirements including but not limited to the product specifications, design, pricing etc; 7.Procure orders and advise in the negotiation of terms of supply and payment.” 16. We note that these activities cannot be considered as consultancy as these services is only bringing the link between the buyer and supplier by sharing the data of prospective buyers and their requirement to the sellers. The assessee has provided Marketing services outside India wherein the end customer is outside India and hence, the source of income lies outside India and is not chargeable to tax in India under section 4 read with section 5 and Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and hence in our view this is pure :-15-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 marketing services. Therefore, view taken by the AO /DRP to consider these marketing services as Royalty to be brought to tax under Section 9(1)(vii) cannot be countenanced. 17. Further, on perusal of Article 13(4)(C) of the India-UK DTAA also, in the facts and circumstances of the assessee, the amounts received by the assessee against provision of marketing services under the Marketing Service Agreement does not satisfy 'make available' criteria and hence in our considered opinion this services of the assessee cannot be subjected to tax as 'Fees for technical Services'. Further, we note that the following judicial pronouncements relied by the assessee in support of their appeal cannot be negated as the facts of the cases are identical to the facts of the assessee; 1. Evolv Clothing Co. P.Ltd Vs. ACIT (Supra) 2. Laserwords US Inc. Vs.DCIT 3. CIT Vs.m/S.Grup ISM pvt. Ltd 18. Considering the facts and cirucumstances of the case and respectfully following the judicial prououncements relied by the assessee, we are of the view that the marketing servcies provided by the assessee to TPC India, cannot be treated as royalty and :-16-: IT(TP)A. No: 15/Chny/2022 hence we set aside the order of the AO /DRP and allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 19. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 01st October, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- (महावीर िसंह) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपाȯƗ/ Vice-President Sd/- (एस. आर.रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखासद˟/Accountant Member चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated: 01-10-2024 JPV आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT – Chennai 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "