The Court held that, for a party to claim the benefit of a “same treatment” clause based on a DTAA between India and another OECD member state, the relevant date is when the treaty was entered into with India, not when the other country subsequently became an OECD member. Further, a stipulation in a DTAA or protocol requiring equal treatment does not automatically integrate more favourable terms from another DTAA unless separately notified under section 90. The SLP against the High Court’s order was dismissed.
Societe de Participations Financiers v. ACIT (2025) 303 Taxman 586 / 474 ITR 199 (SC) Editorial: Societe de Participations Financiers v. ACIT (2024) 297 Taxman 75 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 90: Double taxation relief – SLP dismissed against High Court order holding that a notification under section 90(1) is mandatory to give effect to a DTAA, or any protocol altering its terms, which would have the effect of changing existing provisions of law – OECD Model Convention – Art. 24 [Art. 136]
Leave a Reply