The assessee, Solvay S.A. (Belgium), received Rs.109.72 crore from its Indian affiliates, Solvay Specialties India Pvt. Ltd. and Sunshine Chemicals, towards centralized functional support services rendered under a Functional Service Agreement. The Assessing Officer held the receipts taxable as “royalty” u/s 9(1)(vi) and under Art.12(3)(a) of the India–Belgium DTAA, while the DRP alternatively treated them as “fees for technical services” under S..9(1)(vii) and Art.12(3)(b), holding that the services were managerial, technical, and consultancy in nature. The Tribunal observed that the services rendered  relating to IT, procurement, shared business, HR, finance, communication, legal, industrial and other administrative support were routine, standardized, and provided to group entities on a global scale to ensure operational uniformity and efficiency. They did not involve any control or management of the Indian entities’ business, nor any human interface imparting technical expertise or specialized advice. Referring to GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO (2015) 371 ITR 453)(SC), DIT (IT ) v. Panalfa Autoelektrik Ltd. (2014) 227 Taxman 351)(Delhi)(HC),   Springer Verlag GmbH v. DCIT (2022) 197 ITD 173 ( Delhi ) ( Trib)  and the OECD e-commerce report (2001), the Tribunal held that “managerial services” require control of management, “technical services” require application of specialized knowledge in a technical field, and “consultancy services” require human interface and advice. The centralized group services were merely support and coordination functions without these characteristics. Applying the rule of consistency as similar receipts were accepted in earlier years, the Tribunal held that the payments could not be characterized as FTS under Art.12(3)(b) of the India–Belgium DTAA or u/s 9(1)(vii). Accordingly, the addition was deleted. (AY. 2022–23) ( ITA No. 2071/Mum/2025, dated 27.10.2025 )