Tribunal held that in order to decide whether the services rendered by the assessee fit the definition of ”fees for technical services” under the India-Sweden Agreement, the question to determine was whether “the technical knowledge or skills of the provider was absorbed by the receiver so that the receiver can deploy similar technology or techniques in the future without depending upon the provider”. The services rendered by the assessee did not enable the recipient of the services to perform the same services, in the future, without recourse to the assessee. Thus, the ”make available clause” was not satisfied in the course of rendition of services by the assessee and the consultancy fees could not be brought to tax under article 12 of India-Sweden Agreement. On the taxability income on account of information technology services, article 12(4)(a) of the India-Sweden Agreement would come into play when the person receiving the money as royalty and the person providing service ancillary or subsidiary to the enjoyment of that right were the same. The payment received by the assessee had been held to be in the nature of reimbursement, which was outside the ambit of taxation. The person selling the software was B, of Switzerland, and the person providing the services in question was the assessee. Article 12(4)(a) would not, therefore, come into play at all. Therefore, taxation under article 12 in the present case could not come into play when the “make available” clause was not satisfied. (AY. 2015-16)