1. Background :
1.1 S. 9 of the Act provides for situations where income is deemed to accrue or arise in India. S. 9 was extensively amended vide the Finance Act, 1976, to provide that in case of payments of interest, royalty or fees for technical services (FTS) received from a resident payer, income would be deemed to accrue or arise in India, except where the interest or royalty or FTS is relatable to a business or profession carried on by the resident payer outside India or for making or earning any income from any source
outside India.
1.2 The Finance Act, 2007 inserted an Explanation in S. 9 with retrospective effect from 1-6-1976 and clarified that where income is deemed to accrue or arise in India u/s.9(1)(v), (vi) or (vii), such income shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, whether or not the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India. The amendment was made to neutralise the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT, (2007) (288 ITR 408/158 Taxman 259).
1.3 The Karnataka High Court in Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2009) 182 Taxman 252 (Kar.) has held that the explanation does not fully neutralise the Supreme Court decision. We shall deal with these two decisions in some detail in the following paragraphs.
1.4 The Finance Act, 2010 has substituted the Explanation, with retrospective effect from
1-6-1976, also to cover the situation left out earlier i.e., rendition of services in India, and provides that the income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India whether the non-resident has rendered services in India or not.
2. Provisions of S. 4 of the Finance Act, 2010 :
Let us now examine the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 in some detail.
2.1 S. 4 of the Finance Act, 2010 has substituted the existing Explanation after S. 9(2) with a new Explanation as under :
“4. In S. 9 of the Income-tax Act, for the Explanation occurring after Ss.(2), the following Explanation shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from the 1st day of June, 1976, namely :
“Explanation — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this Section, income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of Ss.(1) and shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, whether or not
(i) the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India; or
(ii) the non-resident has rendered services in India.”
2.2 Notes on the Finance Bill, 2010 :
The Note 4 of Notes on clauses of the Finance Bill, 2010 reads as under :
“Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to amend S. 9 of the Income-tax Act relating to income deemed to accrue or arise in India. The existing provisions contained in the Explanation occurring after Ss.(2) of the aforesaid Section provide that, for the removal of doubts, for the purposes of the said Section, where income is deemed to accrue or arise in India under clauses (v), (vi) and (vii) of Ss.(1), such income shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, whether or not, the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India. It is proposed to substitute the said Explanation so as to provide that the income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of subsection (1) and shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, whether or not
(i) the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India; or
(ii) the non-resident has rendered services in India.
This amendment will take effect, retrospectively, from 1st June, 1976 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the A.Y. 1977-1978 and subsequent years.”
2.3 The Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2010 explains the background of the proposed amendment as under :
“Income deemed to accrue or arise in India to a non-resident :
S. 9 provides for situations where income is deemed to accrue or arise in India.
Vide the Finance Act, 1976, a source rule was provided in S. 9 through insertion of clauses (v), (vi) and (vii) in Ss.(1) for income by way of interest, royalty or fees for technical services, respectively. It was provided, inter alia, that in case of payments as mentioned under these clauses, income would be deemed to accrue or arise in India to the non-resident under the circumstances specified therein.
The intention of introducing the source rule was to bring to tax interest, royalty and fees for technical services, by creating a legal fiction in S. 9, even in cases where services are provided outside India as long as they are utilised in India. The source rule, therefore, means that the situs of the rendering of services is not relevant. It is the situs of the payer and the situs of the utilisation of services which will determine the taxability of such services in India.
This was the settled position of law till 2007. However, the Supreme Court, in the case of Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd., v. DIT (2007) (288 ITR 408), held that despite the deeming fiction in S. 9, for any such income to be taxable in India, there must be sufficient territorial nexus between such income and the territory of India. It further held that for establishing such territorial nexus, the ser-vices have to be rendered in India as well as utilised in India. This interpretation was not in accordance with the legislative intent that the situs of rendering service in India is not relevant as long as the services are utilised in India. Therefore, to remove doubts regarding the source rule, an Explanation was inserted below Ss.(2) of S. 9 with retrospective effect from 1st June, 1976 vide the Finance Act, 2007. The Explanation sought to clarify that where income is deemed to accrue or arise in India under clauses (v), (vi) and (vii) of Ss.(1) of S. 9, such income shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, regardless of whether the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India. However, the Karnataka High Court, in a recent judgment in the case of Jindal Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS), has held that the Explanation, in its present form, does not do away with the requirement of rendering of services in India for any income to be deemed to accrue or arise to a non-resident u/s.9. It has been held that on a plain reading of the Explanation, the criteria of rendering services in India and the utilisation of the service in India laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) remains untouched and unaffected by the Explanation.
In order to remove any doubt about the legislative intent of the aforesaid source rule, it is proposed to substitute the existing Explanation with a new Explanation to specifically state that the income of a non-resident shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India under clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of Ss.(1) of S. 9 and shall be included in his total income, whether or not,
a) the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India; or
b) the non-resident has rendered services in India.
This amendment is proposed to take effect retrospectively from 1st June, 1976 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the A.Y. 1977-78 and subsequent years.”
3. Supreme Court’s decision in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax, (2007) 288 ITR 408 (SC) :
Since the Memorandum refers to this case, let us examine in some detail, as to what was held by the Supreme Court. Regarding the necessity of the sufficient territorial nexus, the Supreme Court held as under :
“Territorial nexus doctrine, thus, plays an important part in assessment of tax. Tax is levied on one transaction where the operations which may give rise to income may take place partly in one territory and partly in another. The question which would fall for consideration is as to whether the income that arises out of the said transaction would be required to be proportioned to each of the territories or not. [Para 26]
Income arising out of operation in more than one jurisdiction would have territorial nexus with each of the jurisdictions on actual basis. If that be so, it may not be correct to contend that the entire income ‘accrues or arises’ in each of the jurisdictions. The Authority has proceeded on the basis that supplies in ques-tion had taken place offshore. It, however, has rendered its opinion on the premise that offshore supplies or offshore services were intimately connected with the turnkey project. [Para 27]
For attracting the taxing statute there has to be some activities through permanent establishment. If income arises without any activity of the permanent establishment, even under the DTAA the taxation liability in respect of overseas services would not arise in India. S. 9 spells out the extent to which the income of non-resident would be liable to tax in India. S. 9 has a direct territorial nexus. Relief under a double taxation treaty having regard to the provisions contained in S. 90(2) would arise only in the event a taxable income of the assessee arises in one Contracting State on the basis of accrual of income in another Contracting State on the basis of residence. Thus, if the appellant has income that accrued in India and is liable to tax because in its State all residents are entitled to relief from such double taxation payable in terms of Double Taxation Treaty. However, so far as accrual of income in India is concerned, taxability must be read in terms of S. 4(2) read with S. 9, whereupon the ques-tion of seeking assessment of such income in India on the basis of Double Taxation Treaty would arise. [Para 67]
Reading the provision of S. 9(1)(vii) (c) in its plain sense, it can be seen that it requires two conditions which have to be satisfied.
The services which are the source of the income, that is sought to be taxed, have to be rendered in India, as well as utilised in India, to be taxable in India. In the instant case, both these conditions are not satisfied simultaneously, excluding that income from the ambit of taxation in India. Thus, for a non-resident to be taxed on income for services, such services need to be rendered within India, and have to be a part of a business or profession carried on by such person in India. The appellant in the instant case have provided services to persons resident in India, and though the same have been used in India, the same have not been rendered in India. [Para 71]
S. 9(1)(vii) whereupon reliance has been placed by the Revenue, must be read with S. 5, which takes within its purview the territorial nexus on the basis whereof tax is required to be levied, namely, (a) resi-dent, and (b) receipt or accrual of income. [Para 72]
Global income of a resident although is sub-jected to tax, global income of a non-resident may not be. The answer to the question would depend upon the nature of the contract and the provisions of the DTAA. [Para 73]
What is relevant is receipt or accrual of income, as would be evident from a plain reading of S. 5(2). The legal fiction created although in a given case may be held to be of wide import, yet it is trite that the terms of a contract are required to be construed having regard to the international covenants and conventions. In a case of the instant nature, interpretation with reference to the nexus to tax territories would also assume significance. Territorial nexus for the purpose of determining the tax liability is an internationally accepted principle. An endeavour should, thus, be made to construe the taxability of a non-resident in respect of income derived by it. Having regard to the internationally accepted principle and the DTAA, it may not be possible to give an ex-tended meaning to the words ‘income deemed to accrue or arise in India’ as expressed in S.
S. 9 incorporates various heads of income on which tax is sought to be levied by the Republic of India. Whatever is payable by a resident to a non-resident by way of fees for technical services, thus, would not always come within the purview of S. 9(1)(vii). It must have sufficient territorial nexus with India so as to furnish a basis for imposition of tax.
Whereas a resident would come within the purview of S. 9(1)(vii), a non-resident would not, as services of a non-resident to a resident which are utilised in India may not have much relevance in determining whether the income of the non-resident accrues or arises in India. It must have a direct live link with the services rendered in India. When such a link is established, the same may again be subjected to any relief under the DTAA. A dis-tinction may also be made between rendition of services and utilisation thereof.” [Para 74] [Emphasis supplied]
In this connection, attention is invited to Shri N. A. Palkhivala’s comments on the amendments made in S. 9(1) vide the Finance Act, 1976 in para 18 on pages 384 and 385 of ‘The Law & Practice of Income-tax’ Vol-I, 9th edition, 2004.
4. Karnataka High Court’s decision in Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Bangalore
Let us now also examine in some detail the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd., referred to in the Memorandum explaining Provisions of Clause 4 of the Finance Bill, 2010.
The Karnataka High Court considered the aforesaid Supreme Court’s decision while considering the import of Explanation inserted after S. 9(2) and held as under :
“In this case, the counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Clifford Chance v. Dy. CIT, (2009) 176 Taxman 458 to contend that the ratio of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd.’s case (supra) regarding twin criteria of rendering of service in India and its utilisation in India has not been done away with by the incorporation of Explanation to S. 9(2). The Explanation makes it clear that the tax liability is subject to the provisions of S. 9(1)(vii)(c). Thus the twin requisites laid down by the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd.’s case (supra) still holds the field. The memorandum explaining the provisions although declares that the Explanation is incorporated to overcome the decision of the Supreme Court, however, the counsel submitted that the objects and reasons stated are only external aids to be used only when the text of the law is ambiguous. In the instant case it is argued that the Explanation incorporated does not offer any ambiguity to seek the assistance of external aids. Plain reading of the provision makes it unequivocal that the position of tax liability clarified in the Explanation is subject to the provisions of S. 9(1)(vii)(c).”
“The Explanation incorporated in S. 9(2) declares that ‘where the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India under clauses (v), (vi), of Ss.(1), such income shall be included in the total income of the non-resident, whether or not the resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India.’ The plain reading of the said provision suggests that criterion of residence, place of business or business connection of a non -resident in India has been done away with for fasten-ing the tax liability. However, the criteria of rendering service in India and the utilisation of the service in India laid down by the Su-preme Court in Ishikawajima- Harima Heavy Industries Ltd.’s case (supra) to attract tax liability u/s.9(1)(vii) remains untouched and unaffected by the Explanation to S. 9(2).
When the purport of the Explanation to S. 9(2) is plain in its meaning, it is unnecessary and impermissible to refer to the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2007. Therefore, it is explicit from the reading of S. 9(1)(vii)(c) and Explanation to S. 9(2) that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd.’s case (supra) still holds the field.” (Emphasis supplied.)
5. Does the amendment adversely impact all payments for Fees for Technical Services rendered by Non-Residents ?
In the following five types of cases, payment of Fees for Technical Services rendered by Non-Residents may still not be taxable in India, subject to fulfilment of other applicable conditions :
i) Payment for FTS covered by concept of ‘Make Available’.
ii) Payment for FTS where relevant treaty does not contain FTS clause.
iii) Payments covered by exclusions provided under provisions of S. 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act.
iv) Payments covered by exclusions provided in the definition of FTS provided in Explanation 2 to S. 9(1)(vii) in respect of “consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head
‘salaries’.”
Fees for Independent Personal Services covered by applicable Article 14 of a tax treaty.
These five items are explained in some detail below.
5.1 Concept of ‘Make Available’ :
Many Indian tax treaties limit the scope of fees for technical services which are taxable in India by application of the concept of ‘Make Available’ discussed below :
The expression ‘make available’ used in the Article in the tax treaties relating to ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (FTS) has far-reaching significance since it limits the scope of technical and consultancy services in the context of FTS.
India has negotiated and entered into tax treaties with various countries where the concept of ‘make available’ under the FTS clause is used. India’s tax treaties with Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Finland1, Malta, Netherlands, Portuguese Republic, Singapore, UK and USA contain the concept of ‘make available’ under the FTS clause. Further, the concept is also applicable indirectly due to existence of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in the protocol to the tax treaties with Belgium, France, Israel, Hungary, Kazakstan, Spain, Switzerland and Sweden.
It is interesting to note that India-Australia Tax Treaty does not have separate FTS clause, but the definition of Royalty, which includes FTS, has provided for make available concept. An analysis of the countries having the concept of make available directly or indirectly in their tax treaties with India reveals that almost all of these countries are developed nations and they have successfully negotiated with India the restricted scope of the definition of FTS as almost all of them are technology exporting countries.
In view of the above, while deciding about taxability of any payment for FTS, the reader would be well advised to examine the relevant article and the protocol of the tax treaty to decide whether the concept of ‘make available’ is applicable to payment of FTS in question and accordingly whether such a payment would be not liable to tax in the source country. He would also be well advised to closely examine the relevant judicial decisions to determine the applicability of the concept of ‘make available’ to payment of FTS in question.
The concept of ‘make available’ is still continuously subject to judicial scrutiny under different circumstances and in respect of various kinds of services. In some cases there are conflicting/differing views and in some cases the concept has not been considered/applied while examining the taxability of the payment of FIS/FTS. As the law is not yet settled, continuous and ongoing monitoring and study of various judicial pronouncements would be necessary for proper understanding and practical application of the concept in practice. It may be noted that this concept does not exist in the OECD Model.
We may draw the attention of the readers to the series of 5 articles on this topic in the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal (November, 2009 to March, 2010). The reader would be well advised to peruse the same.
5.2 Impact of absence of FTS Clause in Indian tax treaties :
In the following Indian tax treaties, there is no Article dealing with taxation of Fees for Technical Services :
Greece, Bangladesh, Brazil, Indonesia, Libya, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, United Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates
Wherever, the Article on Fees for Technical Services is absent in a tax treaty, such a payment is classifiable as ‘Business Profit’ under Article 7 of the relevant tax treaty and if the payee does not have a Permanent Establishment in India in terms of Article 5 of the tax treaty, the same will not be liable to tax in India. The view is supported by many judicial decisions; amongst others :
i) Tekniskil (Sendirian) Berhard v. CIT, (1996) 222 ITR 551 (AAR);
ii) Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v. ITO, (1987) 22 ITD 87 (Mum.);
iii) GUJ Jaeger GmbH v. ITO, (1991) 37 ITD 64 (Mum.);
iv) Christiani & Nielsen Copenhagan v. First ITO, (1991) 39 ITD 355 (Mum.).
In Tekniskil (Sendirian) Berhard v. CIT, a Malaysian company had entered into an agreement with a Korean company under which the Malaysian company was to supply skilled labour to work on Korean company’s barges in India. As the agreement with Malaysia did not have any Article dealing with ‘Fees for Technical Services’ and the business of providing skilled personnel was a part of the Malaysian company’s business and since taxability of the fees received by the Malaysian company was governed by Article 7 of the DTAA dealing with ‘business profits’ with the Malaysian company not having a place of business in India, the AAR held that the fees received by the Malaysian company were not taxable in India. This advance ruling has been universally followed by various Benches of the Tribunal for deciding the issue in favour of the assessee in several cases.
The reader would be well advised to study Article 5(2) of the applicable DTAA and examine whether the activities of the foreign service provider in India would constitute a Service PE, Construction PE or Installation PE. If such a PE is constituted, then the income attributable to the PE would be taxable in India, as business income in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the applicable DTAA.
5.3 Exclusions provided under provisions of S. 9(1) (vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act :
One also has to keep in mind the exclusion provided in S. 9(1)(vii)(b) as under :
“(vii) income by way of fees for Technical Services payable by
a) …………..
b) a person who is a resident, except where the fees are payable in respect of services utilised in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India; or
c) ………….. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the assessee also needs to examine whether such Technical Services have been utilised (a) in a business or profession carried out by the assessee outside India, or (b) for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India. If the answer is in the affirmative, then also such Fees for Technical Services payable to a Non-Resident would not be taxable in India.
In this connection, attention is invited to the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of Titan Industries Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-19(1), Bangalore (2007) 11 SOT 206 (Bang.)
5.4 Exclusions provided in the definition of FTS provided in Explanation 2 to S. 9(1)(vii) :
Explanation 2 to S. 9(1)(vii) defines the term ‘Fees for Technical Services’ as under :
“Explanation 2 — For the purposes of this clause, ‘Fees for Technical Services’ means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient for consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head ‘Salaries’.” [Emphasis supplied]
With regard to interpretation of the words ‘construction, assembly, . . . . . . . . or like project’, the readers’ attention is invited to the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sundwiger EMPG and Co., (2003) 262 ITR 110 (AP).
Further as regard to interpretation of the words ‘mining and like project’, the reader may refer to the following decisions :
a. Geofizyka Torun SP. ZO.O. (2009 TIOL 31 ARA-IT)
b. ACIT v. Paradigm Geophysical Pvt. Ltd., [2008 TIOL 362 ITAT Del]
c. Many other decisions rendered in the context of S. 44BB read with S. 9(1)(vii)
Due to space constraints we are not dealing with the above case laws in detail here. The reader also needs to examine whether such services have been excluded from the definition of FTS as defined in Explanation 2 to S. 9(1)(vii).
5.5 Fees for Independent Personal Services :
5.5.1 Article 14 is concerned with professional services and other services of an independent character. It excludes :
- Industrial or commercial activities;
- Services performed by an employee who is covered by Article 15 (dependent Personal Services);
- Independent activities which are covered by more specific provisions of Articles 16 and 17 (e.g., Non-employee director, artistes and sportsmen, etc.);
- Payments to an enterprise in respect of furnishing of the services of employees or other personnel [which are subject to Article 5(3)(b)].
5.5.2 The definition in Article 14(2) illustrates the meaning of ‘professional services’ and is not exhaustive. The expression ‘professional services’ involves any vocation requiring predominantly intellectual skills, dependent on individual characteristics of the person (pursuing that vocation) and requires specialised and advanced education or expertise in related fields.
5.5.3 Illustrations of ‘Professional’ activities :
(a) Technical and marketing consultation for :
Location of manufacturers of specialised raw materials for use in the manufacture;
- Application of machines for various purposes;
- Changes in design construction;
- Improvement and advancement required in manufacturing
- Identification of customers;
b) Erection, assembly and commissioning
c) Legal consultancy
d) Tax consulting
e) Solicitor
f)Keeping the client abreast of matters concerning technology upgradation and development of new products, and sharing fruits of research and development.
g) Painting
h) Sculpture
i) Surgery
j) Payment to statutory auditors for carrying out audit
k) Scientist
l) Teacher
m) Artist who is paid for product endorsement
n) Consultation for :
- Developing customers in international markets
5.5.4 Professional Fees v. FTS :
There are overlapping areas in ‘professional services’ and in ‘technical, managerial or consultancy services’ inasmuch as a professional service can be rendered in a technical, managerial or consultancy field. In light of the possible overlap between these Articles, certain treaties exclude income covered under Article 14 from the purview of Article 12. In such cases, if at all the amount is chargeable to tax in the State of Source, it can only be under Article 14 and hence to that extent provisions of Article 12 (FTS) and Article 14 are non-competing and mutually exclusive. On the other hand, there are Indian treaties, wherein Article 12 does not expressly exclude from its purview income covered under Article 14. In such cases, it has been held in Dieter Eberhard Gustav Von Der Mark v. CIT, (1999) 235 ITR 698 (AAR) that Article 14 overrides Article 12 by applying the principle that if a case fell under more beneficial provisions of a treaty (Article 14), then it would be futile to stretch the interpretation to bring it under some other provisions of the treaty (Article 12).
Thus, payment of fees falling within the scope of Article 14 cannot be taxed as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ under Article 12.
5.5.5 While deciding about taxability of any Fees for Independent Personal Services under Article 14, the reader would be well advised to examine the relevant Article of the applicable tax treaty and the Article 4 and the definition of ‘Person’ given in the tax treaty to decide whether Article 14 would be rightly applicable to payment of the fees in question and whether the conditions of Article 14 are satisfied on the facts of the case; and accordingly determine whether such a payment would be not liable to tax in the source country. He would also be well advised to closely examine the relevant judicial decisions to determine the applicability of Article 14 to the payment in question.
6. Conclusion :
In light of the SC’s observations on the necessity of ‘territorial nexus’ in the case of Ishikawajima-Harima (supra) extracted above in para 3 above, it would be interesting to see how the Courts will interpret the law even after the amendment to S. 9, as regards the taxability of payment for fees for technical services, irrespective of territorial nexus of such fees to the Union of India.
Another incidental issue for discussion and consideration is : What is the impact of the retrospective amendment on the payer who has already remitted payment of such FTS without TDS, following the law laid down by the Courts in the aforesaid decisions. In our view, the payer should not be considered as ‘an assessee in default’ on account of any retrospective amendment carried out subsequently. Expecting the taxpayer to act on foresight of a retrospective amendment should be hit by the doctrine of impossibility of performance. Therefore, the Tax Department should not initiate any penal action or recovery proceedings against such payer.
It should be noted that India is emerging as a major service provider. If other countries also amend their tax laws on similar lines, various services provided by Indians to non-residents from India may also become exposed to taxation in foreign countries.
(Acknowledgment : We acknowledge that we have relied upon ‘The Law and Practice of Tax Treaties : An Indian Perspective’ by authors CA Rajesh Kadakia and CA Nilesh Modi — 1st Edition, 2008, for writing parts of the article. We express our sincere thanks and gratitude to the authors.)
