The Madras High Court has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the tax treatment of cross-border reimbursements under the Income Tax Act and the India–Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 

The bench of  Dr. Justiceanita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar has observed that reimbursements towards freight, travel, meals and accommodation expenses cannot be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) merely because they were incurred in connection with the execution of a project in India. At the same time, the Court reaffirmed the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147 while extending treaty protection to the taxpayer on the principal issue of taxation of technical services. 

The appellant is a Netherlands-based company, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, which had upheld the reassessment and the taxation of ₹11.53 crore received from its Indian subsidiary as fees for technical services. The dispute arose from the assessment year 2003–04. 

Buy Now: INCOME TAX E-COMPILATION – JUNE 2026

The foreign company had originally secured a contract for dredging and reclamation work at Mundra Port in Gujarat. The contract was subsequently assigned to its Indian subsidiary. During execution of the project, the Dutch company facilitated various operational activities, including mobilisation and demobilisation of dredgers, freight arrangements, accommodation, meals and travel of expatriate personnel.

According to the company, the amounts received from its Indian subsidiary represented pure reimbursements of actual expenditure incurred without any profit element. Consequently, it contended that such receipts were not taxable in India and no tax was deductible at source. 

Initially, the company’s return of income was accepted under Section 143(1). Subsequently, the Income Tax Department reopened the assessment under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148, alleging that income had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer ultimately treated reimbursements amounting to approximately ₹11.53 crore as fees for technical services taxable in India. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the ITAT affirmed this view, prompting the appeal before the High Court. 

The Income Tax Department argued that the foreign company had entered into a Cost Allocation Agreement under which it agreed to provide technical assistance and management support to its Indian subsidiary. According to the Department, the reimbursements were in reality considered for technical services and therefore taxable under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act as well as Article 12 of the India–Netherlands DTAA.

The Department also contended that the company had a business connection and permanent establishment in India and questioned whether the receipts genuinely represented reimbursements without any embedded profit. 

The taxpayer maintained that every payment represented reimbursement of third-party expenses incurred for the Indian project. It argued that there was no mark-up or profit component and, therefore, no taxable income arose in its hands.

Alternatively, it submitted that even if the services were regarded as technical, the receipts would still fall outside the scope of Article 12 of the India–Netherlands DTAA because the services did not satisfy the treaty’s “make available” requirement. The company relied on judicial precedents interpreting the treaty provision governing fees for technical services. 

The Division Bench first examined the challenge to the reopening of the assessment. It noted that the original return had merely been processed under Section 143(1) without scrutiny. Consequently, even though the reassessment notice had been issued after four years, the Assessing Officer possessed jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147.

Accordingly, the Court answered the first substantial question of law in favour of the Revenue. 

The Court then considered whether the various categories of reimbursements could legitimately be taxed as fees for technical services.

It observed that the amounts taxed comprised mobilisation and demobilisation charges, freight and hire charges, meals and accommodation expenses and travelling expenses.

The Bench held that freight, meals, accommodation and travelling expenses cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be characterised as technical services. These expenditures were ordinary operational costs incurred during execution of the project and subsequently reimbursed by the Indian company.

The Court therefore ruled that these categories of reimbursements could not be taxed as fees for technical services. 

The Court also examined the applicability of Article 12 of the India–Netherlands DTAA.

Referring to established judicial precedents, it reiterated that merely rendering services involving technical expertise is insufficient. For payments to qualify as fees for technical services under the treaty, the service provider must make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes in such a manner that the recipient can independently use that knowledge in future without further assistance.

Applying this principle, the Court held that identifying third-party vendors for mobilisation and demobilisation of dredgers or facilitating project execution did not transfer any technical knowledge or know-how to the Indian subsidiary. At best, such activities could amount to consultancy or managerial assistance, but they failed to satisfy the treaty’s “make available” requirement.

Accordingly, the Court held that the taxpayer was entitled to the benefit of the India–Netherlands DTAA, and the receipts could not be taxed as fees for technical services under Article 12. 

Although the assessee argued that all receipts represented pure reimbursements, the Court observed that this involved questions of fact. It noted that while the assessee had produced invoices and other supporting documents, the factual issue had not been pursued before the DRP in the manner now argued.

Therefore, except to the extent of freight, travel, meals and accommodation expenses, the Court declined to interfere with the factual findings regarding reimbursement. 

The Madras High Court partly allowed the appeal. While it upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, it ruled that reimbursements relating to freight, meals, accommodation and travelling cannot be taxed as fees for technical services. It further held that mobilisation and demobilisation-related receipts also failed the “make available” test under the India–Netherlands DTAA and were therefore not taxable as fees for technical services.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Mere Related Party Transactions Do Not Establish Fraud Under IBC: NCLT