https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424410 A payer's application under Section 195(2) for a nil deduction certificate was maintainable because that remedy is available to the person making payment and is not confined to composite payments. The remittances for seconded employees were not shown to satisfy the treaty's "make available" requirement under Article 12(4), so they could not be treated as fees for included services and withholding under Section 195 was not attracted on that basis. Deduction could not be insisted on the gross remittance where chargeability itself was not established. The secondment arrangement and reimbursement of actual costs were therefore held insufficient, on the recorded facts, to support taxability or withholding. en-us Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2025 18:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424410 A payer's application under Section 195(2) for a nil deduction certificate was maintainable because that remedy is available to the person making payment and is not confined to composite payments. The remittances for seconded employees were not shown to satisfy the treaty's "make available" requirement under Article 12(4), so they could not be treated as fees for included services and withholding under Section 195 was not attracted on that basis. Deduction could not be insisted on the gross remittance where chargeability itself was not established. The secondment arrangement and reimbursement of actual costs were therefore held insufficient, on the recorded facts, to support taxability or withholding. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424410