Allowing the  appeal the Tribunal  held that   in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had raised four invoices but due to serious dispute between the parties regarding the terms of lease and other issues, the assessee did not receive any payment towards leasing of the helicopter from the lessee, leave alone, the amount for which four invoices were raised. It was also a fact on record that the parties went into litigation on the issue of implementation of the terms of lease agreement through arbitration proceeding and thereafter before the High Court. Though an arbitration award was passed for sale of the helicopter to the lessee, the sale of helicopter did not happen as the assessee challenged the arbitration award before the High Court and the High Court stayed the arbitration award. Though in form 26AS the amount of Rs. 5,28,58,080 was reflected as the income paid or credited to the assessee, in reality the assessee did not receive even a single rupee towards lease income. This factual position had been accepted by the Departmental authorities. The expression “received” used in paragraph (3) of article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United Arab Emirates read in conjunction with paragraphs (1) and (2) of article 12 would mean “actual receipt” of royalty and not any receipt on accrual or deemed basis. That being the case, the condition in paragraph (3) of article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was not fulfilled. When the admitted factual position was that the assessee had not received any amount against those four invoices, the royalty income could not be added on notional basis. .The Tribunal did not go into the issue whether the amount in dispute could at all be treated as equipment royalty both under the domestic law as well as under treaty provision, leaving the question open. AY.2015-16)