https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217288 Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable for payments to a non-resident business development representative where the applicable DTAA, through its non-discrimination clause, was more beneficial than the domestic provision. Applying section 90(2), the treaty override prevailed, and Article 26(4) of the India-France DTAA was treated as pari materia with the earlier coordinate Bench view. Because the relevant assessment years were before the amendment to section 40(a)(i), tax deduction at source could not be insisted upon on the domestic footing alone. The addition was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217288 Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable for payments to a non-resident business development representative where the applicable DTAA, through its non-discrimination clause, was more beneficial than the domestic provision. Applying section 90(2), the treaty override prevailed, and Article 26(4) of the India-France DTAA was treated as pari materia with the earlier coordinate Bench view. Because the relevant assessment years were before the amendment to section 40(a)(i), tax deduction at source could not be insisted upon on the domestic footing alone. The addition was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217288