https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358069 Lease line charges reimbursed on a cost-to-cost basis, with no income element, were treated as treaty-protected payments and not as royalty or fees for technical services. The domestic amendment to the definition of royalty in section 9(1)(vi) could not override the unamended India-USA treaty, so section 195 withholding was not attracted and the consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(i) failed. Amounts pertaining to an earlier year, already booked and allowed then, could not be disallowed again in the year of payment under section 40(a)(i), which applies only at accrual or payment, whichever is earlier. en-us Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2018 08:24:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358069 Lease line charges reimbursed on a cost-to-cost basis, with no income element, were treated as treaty-protected payments and not as royalty or fees for technical services. The domestic amendment to the definition of royalty in section 9(1)(vi) could not override the unamended India-USA treaty, so section 195 withholding was not attracted and the consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(i) failed. Amounts pertaining to an earlier year, already booked and allowed then, could not be disallowed again in the year of payment under section 40(a)(i), which applies only at accrual or payment, whichever is earlier. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358069