Tribunal held that the software purchased by the assessee being a copyrighted article payment therefor was not covered by the term “royalty” under section 9(1)(vi). Where the assessee did not acquire any copyright in the software, the payment was not covered under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). The amended definition of “royalty” under the domestic law could not be extended to the definition of “royalty” under the Agreement, where the term “royalty” originally defined had not been amended. In terms of the definition of “royalty” under the Agreement, it was payment received in consideration for use or right to use any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work, etc. Thus, purchase of copyrighted article did not fall in realm of royalty. Since the provisions of the Agreement would override the provisions of the Act and were more beneficial and the definition of “royalty” having not undergone any amendment in the Agreement, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax for payments made for purchase of software. The assessee could not be held to be in default. Payment made to  Lease Line charges and reimbursement of expenses  are not liable to deduct tax at source. Training availed of by employees of assessee Web based services available on internet is not technical knowledge imparted by service provider hence no transfer of technology hence not fees for technical Services, accordingly not liable to deduct tax at source.  (AY. 2007-08, 2008 -09)