https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761967 Ocean freight and incidental logistics payments to a non-resident shipping/logistics company were held not to be royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 9 of the India-Korea DTAA because the payments were for logistics services, not for any right to use a ship or equipment, and there was no control over or authority to operate the vessel. The non-resident also had no place of business or permanent establishment in India, so the service income was taxable only in Korea under Article 7. As the sums were not chargeable to tax in India, section 195 withholding did not apply and the consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not justified. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Nov 2024 10:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761967 Ocean freight and incidental logistics payments to a non-resident shipping/logistics company were held not to be royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 9 of the India-Korea DTAA because the payments were for logistics services, not for any right to use a ship or equipment, and there was no control over or authority to operate the vessel. The non-resident also had no place of business or permanent establishment in India, so the service income was taxable only in Korea under Article 7. As the sums were not chargeable to tax in India, section 195 withholding did not apply and the consequential disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was not justified. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761967