https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66809 Section 195 applies only to the portion of a remittance representing income chargeable in India, and the financing or constructive payment route does not by itself remove the payer's withholding obligation. The contracts were held to be contracts for sale of goods, with only incidental supervision, testing, commissioning and local installation; the limited service element alone could be attributed to the non-resident's Indian PE, not the full contract value. Grossing up under section 195A was rejected because the contracts contained no tax-bearer clause. The Revenue's objection on the BHEL payment under section 194C also failed. en-us Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66809 Section 195 applies only to the portion of a remittance representing income chargeable in India, and the financing or constructive payment route does not by itself remove the payer's withholding obligation. The contracts were held to be contracts for sale of goods, with only incidental supervision, testing, commissioning and local installation; the limited service element alone could be attributed to the non-resident's Indian PE, not the full contract value. Grossing up under section 195A was rejected because the contracts contained no tax-bearer clause. The Revenue's objection on the BHEL payment under section 194C also failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66809