The assessee, a French tax resident, claimed the benefit of the Most Favoured Nation clause by relying upon a treaty entered into by India with another country which became an OECD member after execution of the India-France DTAA. The Tribunal held that, in view of the applicable protocol and the notification requirement under section 90, the relevant date for determining eligibility under the Most Favoured Nation clause is the date on which the treaty was entered into with India and not the later date on which the other country became an OECD member. Accordingly, the treaty benefit claimed by the assessee was rejected.  The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case, held that consideration received for providing a corporate guarantee to banks did not involve rendering managerial, technical or consultancy services. Consequently, the corporate guarantee fee was held not to constitute Fees for Technical Services either under section 9(1)(vii) or Article 13 of the India-France DTAA.  The Tribunal held that the seconded employees rendered specialised services to the Indian entity and were not merely performing stewardship functions. The overseas entity continued to be the real employer, and the reimbursement of social security contributions formed part of the consideration for technical services. Accordingly, the reimbursement was held taxable as Fees for Technical Services. The Tribunal held that the tax rate prescribed under Article 13 of the India-France DTAA is inclusive of surcharge. Since education cess is in the nature of an additional surcharge, it also stands subsumed within the treaty rate. Accordingly, surcharge and education cess could not be levied over and above the tax rate prescribed under the DTAA. (AY. 2018-19).