Allowing  the appeal of the assessee the Court held that ; the DTAA having defined “included services”, which was technical and consultancy services ; but specifically having defined it quite distinctly from the all inclusive definition in the Income-tax Act, even by section 90(3) the definition in the DTAA is to be adopted to decide taxation or its avoidance.There was no technology transfer ; nor was there a plan or strategy relating to management, finance, legal, public relations or risk management transferred to the assessee. The services promised by the non-resident company were only to advice on such aspects as were specifically referred to in the agreement. The non-resident company only assisted the Indian company in making the correct decisions on such aspects as were specifically referred to in the agreement, as and when such advice was required. There was no transfer of technology or know-how, even on managerial, financial, legal or risk management aspects ; which would be available for the Indian company to be applied without the hands-on advice offered by the U. S. company. The advice offered on such aspects would have to be on a factual basis with respect to the problems arising at various points of time and there was no transfer of technical or other know-how to the Indian company. Particularly under the double taxation avoidance agreement, none of these aspects on which the U. S. company had promised to advice the Indian company would fall under the “included services” and the “fees for included services” would not be taxable in India.( AY. 2007-08)