Dear Rajendra Prasad,
My comments on the subject are as follows:
Prima facie the transaction would not attract section 195 due to the fact that income of the non resident is not taxable in India. Basically for applicablity of section 195, two conditions are must, (a) payer must be a resident (b) payee must be a non resident wherein such sum received is taxable in India.
It is to be noted that in the given case if the terms of contract to purchase machinery also included clearing and dismantling of such machinery, then reimbursement of expenses incurred would not attract section 195. (See CIT vs. Navabharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. (2000) 244 ITR 261 (AP))
Section 195 will be applicable in cases where machine was already installed in India and some repair work was carried out by foreign agent and such remittance would be in the nature of 'income deemed to arise or accrue in India' (section 9)
Conclusion:
The amount reimbursed to the agent can as well be capitalised to the cost of the asset which is well within the parameters of Accounting Standards (AS 10)
Question of application u/s 195 (2) to the AO should not arise.