The Tribunal held that the services were a one-time job performed and the job ended with the submission of investigation report. It further held that, there was no recurrence of the services as there was no guarantee that the future accidents would happen in the same way so that the first report could be used as a guidance for conducting investigation by the Assessee on its own. Accordingly, it was held that even though the Assessee had the benefit of the services, but it did not gain any technical knowledge, experience or skill by which it could conduct an investigation into an accident independently without the aid of the Dutch company. Accordingly, it was held that as the services do not fall within the ‘make available’ criteria, the same cannot be considered as FTS as per Article 12(5) of the India Netherlands tax treaty. Moreover, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) of the Dutch Company in India, the same could not be taxed in India under Article 7 of the Tax Treaty as well. (AY. 2007-08, 2008-09)