Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that   the agreement between the parties had been properly interpreted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and on re-examination, the Tribunal had concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals). No different view was possible.  That the agreement between the parties clearly mentioned that each invoice shall be submitted no later than the 15th day of each calendar month, identify the compensation due to the provider to compensate it for all costs for providing such services and only costs without any mark-up shall be invoiced. This aspect was rightly taken note of by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.  That in respect of the services rendered by the third parties, on the facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had found that the actuals billed by the third parties were paid by the assessee in the USA and were later reimbursed by TIL to the assessee in India and, therefore, there was no basis for the Assessing Officer to conclude that the payments of reimbursement were in the nature of fees for technical services. The assessee was not the ultimate beneficiary of the sum in question nor did it render any service to TIL. Further, there was no evidence on record to show that the technical skill, knowledge etc. were made available to TIL by the assessee. Furthermore, the Transfer Pricing Officer scrutinised the details of reimbursements while examining the international transaction of reimbursement by TIL to the assessee under section 92 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and found that the assessee made no profit on such reimbursements and that the reimbursements were at arm’s length. The finding having been rendered after a thorough examination of the factual position as well as the terms and conditions of the agreement and article 12(4)(b) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, there was no ground to take a different view. (AY.2010-11)