https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284524 For royalty and development fee credited as outstanding to a non-resident, mere year-end accrual did not trigger disallowance under section 40(a)(i) where Article 13 of the India-Korea DTAA used the word "paid" in its ordinary sense of actual remittance. The treaty language was treated as distinct from domestic charging and withholding provisions, and taxability was held to arise only when payment was actually made, not when the amount was merely payable. Following the coordinate bench view that both accrual and actual payment conditions must be satisfied, the disallowance was deleted and withholding was not attracted at the credit stage. en-us Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:53:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284524 For royalty and development fee credited as outstanding to a non-resident, mere year-end accrual did not trigger disallowance under section 40(a)(i) where Article 13 of the India-Korea DTAA used the word "paid" in its ordinary sense of actual remittance. The treaty language was treated as distinct from domestic charging and withholding provisions, and taxability was held to arise only when payment was actually made, not when the amount was merely payable. Following the coordinate bench view that both accrual and actual payment conditions must be satisfied, the disallowance was deleted and withholding was not attracted at the credit stage. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284524