13. The national legislation covered by Article 3, paragraph 2, is relevant only if the very concept of contract is not defined, as the Supreme Court of Hon`ble Delhi found in the case of DIT Vs New Skies Satellite BV [ (2016) 328 ITR 114 (Del)] . If the term “royalty” is an expression defined in the applicable tax treaty, there can be no need to invoke Article 3, paragraph 2, to further dissect the issue and examine the internal meaning of any expression used in that definition to reach conclusions about royalty connotations. It is therefore not possible to invoke Article 3, paragraph 2, to introduce national law, which also means that the contractual clause has been defined in the treaty. That is why Note 6 of Section 9(1)vi plays, in our modest understanding, no element in the explanation of the concept of “process” in the definition of royalties under the Indo-Singapore tax treaty, in accordance with our modest conception, in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Treaty. This statutory provision is relevant in national law only if the definition of royalties under section 9(1) (vi) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is subject to review, since it expressly states that this definition is “within the meaning of this clause [i.e. section 9, paragraph 9, point v)] “. 10. It is only in exceptional cases that it is possible to deviate from the decisions of the coordinating benches, which does not mean that, in the cases covered, all doors are closed to the parties. If a ruling by the coordinating bank does not access another coordinating bank or if the coordinating bank finds that the judicial precedent was set by incurium, it may indeed be open to the coordinating bank to refer the case to a larger bank or, in one case, the case where the judicial precedent is set for concrete reasons does not constitute a binding precedent. Let us not lose sight of the fact that, as the qualified department has said, in the case of the CIT Vs Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [(2009) 310 ITR 320 (Bom)] there is a direct decision of the Supreme Court for high judicial proceedings, maintaining the ambulatory approach of domestic law, i.e. terms and terms defined within the meaning of Article 3 , paragraph 2, and if, in this case, the same approach applies to certain languages contained in the definition of the licence enterprise, the fall in revenue does not appear, at least on the face of it, to be completely free of legally sustainable merits. Although the decision invoked refers to the above decision, it does not apply in any way to the interaction of the national definitions of law under Article 3, paragraph 2, with indefinite contractual expressions.
This is obviously only one aspect of the issue, and there are many other nuances that need to be considered, analyzed and used consciously. In this context, let us properly identify and deal with the central issue as it is now before us, and this central question is the interpretation that is attributed to the term “procedure” within the meaning of Article 12, paragraph 3, point a), which provides that “the term “royalty” used in this article means payments of any kind, in return for the use of ( (a) copyrights on a literary, artistic or scientific work, including camera films or films or soundtracks used for radio or television shows, patents, trademarks, designs, plan, formula or secret process (highlighted by the highlight we now make available) or for information on the industrial experience commercial or scientific, including the benefits of alienation of such rights, property or information.”