Held that  the designs and drawings were made outside India in Switzerland and were supplied to the contractee from Switzerland and the sale transaction was completed in Switzerland and amounts were received in Switzerland. From the details of designs and drawings as well as documentation submission, schedule of drawings and designs, it was clear that the drawings and designs supplied by the assessee were specifically related to the supply of plant and equipment for the JSW steel project. Though both the contracts, one for supply of plant and equipment and the other for supply of drawings and designs had been separately executed, they had been executed on the very same date. The purchaser was vested with the right to terminate the contract unilaterally, inter alia, due to the delay in delivery of the equipment in excess of 120 days for the reasons solely attributable to the seller and if the seller failed to take necessary remedial action. Thus, failure to supply plant and equipment within the stipulated time period could determine the contract for supply of drawing and design and the purchaser could terminate the contract in that eventuality. Therefore, the contract for supply of drawings and designs was inextricably linked to the contract for supply of plant and equipment. When the supply of plant and equipment had been treated as sale transaction completed outside India, and hence, not taxable in India, the sale and supply of drawings and designs being inextricably linked to sale and supply of plant and equipment had to be considered cumulatively and as a part of sale and supply of plant and equipment. Therefore, the amount received by the assessee from supply of drawings and designs was not taxable in India as fees for technical services. Tribunal also held that   the assessee had entered into a contract for supply of electromagnetic stirrer. According to the assessee’s admission, technical personnel were deputed to supervise the erection and commissioning of the plant and equipment. Thus, in course of such supervisory activity, the qualified technical personnel deputed by the assessee must have imparted technical services for erection and commissioning of the plant and equipment. Therefore, the amount received fell within the definition of fees for technical services, both under the domestic law as well as under article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and it was immaterial whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India or not. Therefore, the amount having qualified as fees for technical services, had rightly been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee.(AY. 2008-09)