Article 10(2) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section Article 10(2), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. and Optum Global Solutions International B.V. v ITO (TDS) — OVERRULED
High CourtHelps taxpayerOverruled
My Dutch parent has a s.197 certificate application pending and wants dividend withholding at 5 per cent under the most favoured nation clause in the Protocol. There is a Delhi High Court judgment in its favour. Can I still rely on it?
No. This Delhi High Court judgment held that the Protocol forms an integral part of the India-Netherlands Convention so that 'no separate notification is required' for the most favoured nation clause to operate, and directed withholding at 5 per cent by importing the rate from India's later treaties with Slovenia, Lithuania and Colombia. That reasoning was reversed by the Supreme Court in Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) v. Nestle SA on 19 October 2023, which held that a notification under s.90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition before a court, authority or tribunal can give effect to a Protocol that alters the existing provisions of law. The entry is carried so that the reader can identify the authority and stop relying on it.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.