Held that the role of the assessee was restricted to verification of the information concerning various candidates proposed to be hired by its clients. The information collected by the assessee was not protected by any copyright, but its circulation was regulated under the U. K., and other local laws, which cast a duty upon it to ensure the confidentiality of the reports as they contained details of the applicants. None of the requisites under article 13(3) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was satisfied so as to qualify such receipts as “royalty”. The assessee was merely providing a report summarising its findings with respect to the background check undertaken by it, which report constituted factual data and could not per se qualify as literary, artistic or scientific work, patent, trademark, design, model, plan, secret formula or process or information. It did not fulfil the requirements enlisted under section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Moreover, none of the rights mentioned in section 14(a) thereof had been vested with the client by the assessee. The client did not have any right to publicly display, sell, distribute, copy, edit, modify or commercially exploit the report. The consideration received by the assessee was purely towards provision of background screening services and not for use, or right to use, any copyrightable material. Further, the assessee did not provide access to any database to its clients but only access to reports requisitioned by the client, in electronic form. Nothing had been brought on record by the Revenue to refute the assessee’s claim. Online access to background screening results was not tantamount to providing access to the database maintained by the assessee.  That the information obtained by the assessee from various sources was in the nature of factual data about prospective candidates, which did not involve imparting any kind of commercial experience, skill or expertise. It was a validation report assuring its client about the authenticity of the information contained therein. It did not involve any transfer of either commercial experience or the right to use the experience, nor transfer of any skill or knowledge of the assessee to the customers. As the assessee’s services did not involve any technical skill, knowledge or consultancy or make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to the clients, the services should not be considered fees for technical services under article 13(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. No addition could be made on account of royalty(AY. 2021-22)