2019 (8) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with Steyr-Daimler-PUCHAG (PUCH), Austria and Convention for avoidance of double taxation between India and Austria, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 9,34,579/- paid to Puch was subjected to deduction of tax at source? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the material on record, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the consideration pain to Puch for supply of designs, drawings and specifications was nothing but "royalty" and subjected to deduction of tax at source? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and true interpretation of the documents, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that there was no distinction between the expressio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p to 50,000 vehicles, .75% royalty from 50,000 to 100,000 vehicles and . 5% royalty above more than 100,000 vehicles produced. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice that there is no dispute that on the royalty paid under Clause 2.1, the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source. 4. The dispute in the present case is whether similarly for the payment of 3 million Austrian schilling also the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source? 5. The A.O. held that even for the payment of 3 million Austrian Schilling, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source since it was in the nature of royalty payment. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner held that this payment was not royalty payment and as per the convention si....