N.L. Kalra, Accountant Member. - The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - V, Bangalore dated 28-2-2002.

2. The grievance of the appellant is that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of ITO (TDS) by holding that payments made to non-resident companies were either royalty or fee for technical service as against payments for advice and assistance as contended by the appellant and hence such payments were liable for deduction of tax at source.

3. The assessee, contended before the ITO that it is making payments to DCIL in respect of services which cm be classified with two major heads:

(a)Provision of expertise and training on the technological aspects of the mobile telephony business?

(b)Provision of advisory and support services as operational and financial aspects of the business.

3.1 The appellant has deducted tax at source in respect of payment for services provided under category A but has not deducted tax at source in respect of payments for services under Category B. It was submitted that services under category 8 can be considered as technical service but Indo-Mauritius treaty does not cover technical se