The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the amounts received by the Assessee did not qualify to be FTS and hence, not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment. While arriving at the said decision, the Tribunal took note of following points viz. (i) The term FTS under Article 13 of the India-Israel DTAA had a very wide scope. Further, w.r.t Article 12 and 13 of the India-Israel DTAA, the Protocol to the treaty contained the ‘Most Favoured Nation’ clause. Accordingly, the definition of the term FTS under India- Portugal and India-Canada DTAA were borrowed. In terms of the said DTAAs, the term FTS included ‘make available’ clause within its ambit; (ii) In the present case, the Assessee had not made available technical knowledge, experience, skill, knowhow etc. to NIIPL since such services were provided on a recurring basis; (iii) By applying the restricted meaning of FTS as per India-Portugal and India- Canada DTAAs, the amounts received by the Assessee from providing SAP and information technology support services were not in the nature of FTS. (AY. 2010-11, 2011-12)