D. Karunakara Rao, Accountant Member - There are six appeals by the Revenue in this bunch, which are directed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) V, Hyderabad, all dated 14.3.2011, in the context of the orders passed by the assessing officer under S. 201(1A) of the Act, for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08. Assessee has also filed cross-objection in the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2001-02. Since common issues are involved, these appeals are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. Effective grounds of the Revenue, common in all its appeals, read as follows-

"2. The learned CIT(A) has ignored the explanation in Para 8 of the AO order, where in the Assessing officer clearly explained that it is not mere repair work but specific and technical expertise are required to perform the work order.

3. The Learned. CIT(A) has erred where he has treated the services rendered by the assessee as non technical services in view of the Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. However, technical personnel is included in the definition of technical services and as per Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Aft. Therefore, it will be treated as technical services as defined in the I.T. Act."

3. Briefly stated, relevant facts of the case common in all these cases excepting for the amounts involved, as taken from the appeal for assessment year 2001-02, are that the assessee is a joint venture company involving Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL) and GE Pacific (Mauritius) Limited. TDS survey took place in the premises of the assessee. During the survey action under S.133A of the Act, it was noticed that, in the financial year 2001-02, BHEL-GE has paid to/credited the accounts of Middle East Engineering Company Ltd,, Saudi Arabia with Rs. 4,89,39,5335; and M/s. Watt & Ackkermans Pte. Ltd. of Singapore with Rs. 61,06,400/- for repairing and refurbishment etc., and the assessee made the above referred payments to the said companies abroad without making TDS. Assessing officer came to the conclusion that the said amounts constitute 'Fee for technical services' as defined in S. 9(vii) of the Act of the Income-tax Act. The assessee objected to the said proposal on the ground that the works in question are the works done by the foreign companies abroad, and the payment is made for carrying out the work and not for performing any technical service, since no intellectual aspect is involved in the repairs and refurbishment activity carried out by those foreign companies. Other reasons put forth by the assessee opposing the proposal of the assessing officer are narrated by the assessing officer in para 4 of the impugned order passed by the assessing officer under S. 201(1A) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the assessing officer analysed the provisions of S. 9(1) of the Act in general and clause (vii) of the said subsection relating to 'fee for technical services' in particular. Further, the assessing officer perused the scope of the works carried on by the non-resident companies vide clauses (a) to (s) enlisted in para 8 of the impugned order and came to the conclusion that these items of work done by the foreign agencies cannot be said to be consisting mainly of physical involvement, since those woks would definitely involve technical inputs of high order by the qualified engineers and trained technical personnel. Accordingly, he decided that the payments in question would fall within the scope of 'Fee for Technical Services' (FTS) as defined in sec. 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Further, the assessing officer also examined the applicability of the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India - Saudi Arabia and India - Singapore and came to the conclusion that knowledge and skill are made available in this case while repairing and refurbishment of the items sent broad and therefore, he held that the provisions of S. 195 of t