The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that interpretation of Expression ‘is’ occurring in DTAAs [clause IV(2) of India-Netherlands DTAA protocol-other two clauses in relation to France and Switzerland being similar] would have present signification, therefore, for a party to claim benefit of a same treatment clause, based on entry of DTAA between India and another state which was member of OECD, relevant date is entering into treaty with India and not a later date, when, after entering into DTAA with India, such country becomes an OECD member, in terms of India’s practice. Further, a stipulation in a DTAA or a protocol with one nation, requires same treatment in respect to a matter covered by its terms, subsequent to its being entered into when another nation (which is member of a multilateral organization such as OECD), is given better treatment, does not automatically lead to integration of such term extending same benefit in regard to a matter covered in DTAA of first nation, which entered into DTAA with India, and in such event, terms of earlier DTAA require to be amended through a separate notification under section 90. Furthermore, notification under section 90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition for a court, authority, or tribunal to give effect to a DTAA, or any protocol changing its terms or conditions, which has the effect of altering existing provisions of law. No case for review of the above order was made out, and thus, the review petition was dismissed. The curative petition was dismissed.