Held that since the arrangement was in the nature of a cost-to-cost reimbursement without any element of income therein. From a conjoint reading of article 15 of the OECD Model Convention and article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United States of America, there was no doubt that the assessee in India was the economic and de facto employer of the seconded employees, who were in India for more than 183 days in a 12-month period. All the seconded employees had a permanent account number and filed their returns in India in respect of the full amount of their salary. The definition of “fees for technical services” excluded “consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head salaries”. If the seconded employee was regarded as an employee of the assessee in India, the reimbursement to the overseas entity by the assessee would be in the nature of not “fees for technical services” but “salary”. Therefore, the reimbursements could not be chargeable to tax in the hands of the overseas entity and there would be no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 195. Further, the concept of “make available” was not satisfied. Thus, even if the rendering of service by the seconded personnel constituted a contract for service, in the absence of “making available” any technical knowledge or skill to the Indian entity, it shall not constitute fees for technical services. As a result, the amount reimbursed by the assessee to the overseas entity could not be subjected to tax in India as there was no element of income embedded in it. Consequently, as there was no violation of section 195, the assessee could not be held to be an assessee-in-default under section 201(1) for all the years under consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the interest levied under section 201(1A). (AY.2011-12 to 2018-19)