What is the India–Uzbekistan treaty withholding rate on royalties and fees for technical services?

Royalty: 10% of the gross amount — Article 12 (Royalties), India–Uzbekistan DTAA (as amended through 20 Aug 2026). Equipment-use royalties sit inside the royalty definition and take the same 10%. FTS: 10% — Article 13 (Technical Fees). Gate: the treaty rate applies only through s.393(2) Sl. No. 17 → s.2(90)(c) with the s.159(8) TRC + Form 10F gate met; domestic comparator 20% + surcharge/cess (s.207(2)). Notes: FTS lives in Article 13 ('Technical Fees'), NOT Article 12 and NOT a protocol-inserted Article 12A. Any engine keyed to 'Art 12 = royalty+FTS' or 'Art 13 = capital gains' will mis-cite this corridor: here Article 14 is capital gains and Article 15 is independent personal services (the article cross-referenced by the Art 12(4)/13(4) PE-and-fixed-base carve-outs).; No make-available limb in FTS. Unlike the US (Art 12) and UK (Art 13) calibration treaties, Uzbekistan FTS bites on ordinary technical/managerial/consultancy services with no technology-transfer test — and because there is no MFN clause, make-available cannot be imported.; Equipment royalty is INSIDE the general Art 12(3) definition ('for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial or scientific equipment') and shares the single 10% cap. There is no separate equipment lane — the opposite of the India-US pattern where 12(2)(b) carves equipment out at 10% against a 15% general rate. equipment_treatment = same_as_general, not limb_absent.; SUPERSEDED-TREATY TRAP: pre-1994 Uzbekistan-source/destination flows were governed by the India-USSR DTAA (signed 20-11-1988, notified 1989), which India applied to Soviet successor States pending replacement. The 1993 Agreement displaced it for Uzbekistan from 25-01-1994 (effective FY from 01-04-1993 in India / 01-01-1993 in Uzbekistan). Legacy citations to the India-USSR treaty for Uzbekistan are dead law.; RATE-VINTAGE TRAP: the widely-mirrored free copies of this treaty (e.g. the taxsutra/internationaltax.co.in 'UZBEKISTAN DTAA.pdf' scan) reproduce the UNAMENDED 1993 text and state 15% for royalties (Art 12(2)), technical fees (Art 13(2)), dividends and interest. Those are all superseded by the 2012 Protocol. Any 15% figure for this corridor sourced after 20-07-2012 is wrong.; CBDT page-header metadata is misleading: the incometaxindia.gov.in Uzbekistan page shows 'Date of Signature: 1996' (that is the year of the enabling notification S.O. 790(E), not the 29-07-1993 signature) against 'Entry Into Force: 25/01/1994'. Do not ingest that header as the signature date.; Language-version divergence: the Uzbek-language consolidated text on lex.uz (Uzbekistan Ministry of Justice national legislation database, doc 2652132/2652136) renders the Art 12(3) royalty definition with extra enumerated items — videocassettes and computer programme ('kompyuter dasturi') — that do not appear in the English text on the Indian side. The treaty's own closing clause makes the ENGLISH text operative in case of divergence (both for the 1993 Agreement and for the 2012 Protocol), so the narrower English definition governs. Flagged because a software-payment characterisation argument could be built on the Uzbek text and should be rejected.; MLI: India listed the Uzbekistan treaty as Covered Tax Agreement No. 91 in its MLI position (naming both the 29-07-1993 original and the 11-04-2012 amending instrument, and reserving/notifying Art 4(3) and existing LOB Art 28B(2)-(3)). Uzbekistan was not a Party to the BEPS MLI, so the treaty is NOT modified by the MLI and no synthesised text exists. Reports of Uzbekistan signing the MLI in mid-2026 surfaced in search summaries but could not be verified against an OECD signatory list — treat MLI modification as inapplicable and re-check before relying on any PPT-by-MLI argument..