“Section 248(2)”

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

Sections 4 and 5 of the Income Tax Act, which define total income and chargeability, are subject to Section 90, meaning that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the Act's provisions in case of a conflict.

A charitable trust may adjust expenditure incurred for religious or charitable purposes in an earlier year against the income of a subsequent year, which is considered an application of income for the subsequent year under Section 11. This principle is guided by commercial considerations and the benevolent intent of Section 11.

Interest paid on a loan taken against the security of a fixed deposit cannot be set off against or reduced from the interest income earned on that fixed deposit. The Income-tax Act does not permit such netting.

The interpretation of the term 'royalty' as defined in tax treaties is not influenced by India's subsequent changes in position to the OECD Commentary or by executive actions. A treaty between sovereign states cannot be unilaterally amended by domestic law or executive policy without incorporating such changes into the treaty itself.

Indian courts should follow Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) when interpreting similar terms in the Income Tax Act. The case establishes the principle of DTAA primacy over domestic law for such interpretations.

Where an assessee claims that investments were made from their own non-interest bearing funds, the onus is on them to establish this, particularly when funds are mixed.

The principle of mutuality applies when there is a complete identity between contributors and participators, and their actions are in furtherance of the association's mandate, with no element of profit for the contributors.