VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The questions of law arising in the above appeals as framed by the assessee/appellant in its memorandum are extracted here under:

“i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not the Appellate Tribunal have held that the appellant is entitled to take recourse to the provisions under the DTAA between India and USA, which are more beneficial than the provisions of the Income Tax Act, as stipulated under Section 90(2) of the said Act?

ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that the management fees paid by the appellant to UST Global, cannot be taxed in India, in the absence of a permanent establishment for UST Global in India?

iii. Ought not the Appellate Tribunal have held that since the payments termed as “management fees” effected by the appellant to UST Global is not chargeable to tax in India, there is no requirement for the application of Section 195, for withholding tax in respect of those payments?

iv. Ought not the Appellate Tribunal have held that management services are not included/covered within the ambit of “Fee for included services” under the India- USA DTAA, prescribed under Article 12 of the said DTAA?

v. Ought not the Appellate Tribunal have held that there is no services “made available” by UST Global to the appellant, going by the definition of “make available” as per the India-USA DTAA?

vi. Is not the finding of fact by the Appellate Tribunal erroneous and perverse, in the light of the factual and legal aspects involved?

2. The appellant is before us on concurrent findings of the lower authorities that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source for the payments made by the appellant to a company situated in the United States of America (USA) for providing specifically management, financial, legal, public relations, treasury and risk management service. The Assessing Officer [AO] found the same to be income deemed to accrue or arise in India with respect to a non-resident as provided for under Sections 5(2) and 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity “IT Act”]. The assessee, before the AO, claimed that under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [for brevity “DTAA”] entered into between the Government of the USA and Government of India, the non-resident was not liable to tax and consequently the appellant was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195(1) of the IT Act. The AO did not refer to the DTAA; but, however, relied on Wallace Pharmaceutitals P. Ltd. In re [(2005) 148 Taxman 347 (AAR-New Delhi), a ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Income-tax). The AO hence disallowed the amounts claimed as expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. Identical facts arise in the appeals; but, however, in I.T.A.38 of 2014 there was a disallowance made of the expenditure, while in the other appeals the assessee was proceeded against under Section 201 of the IT Act for non-deduction of tax at source.

3. The first appellate authority, however, dealt with the DTAA as also referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to find that the services offered by the US Company to the Indian Company come under “fee for included services” and by virtue of Article 12 of DTAA the said services would be taxable within India. The specific finding was that the technical services have been found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be covered under the definition in the IT Act at Section 9(1)(vii). Explanation 2 of the said provision takes within the ambit of “fees for technical services” managerial, technical or consultancy services, including the provision of services of technical or other personnel. Hence any service provided whether it be purely technical or not would be covered especially in the expanding horizons of commerce and industry in the present world.

4. The first appellate authority having rejected the contentions, the appellant was be