India–Belgium tax treaty — rates, PE and MLI

The rates, at a glance

Every figure below is taken from the article named beside it, not from a rates table. Read the condition in the same row before you use the rate — in this treaty the condition is usually the whole answer.

Income	Rate	The condition attached to it	Article
Dividends	15 per cent of the gross amount — a single flat ceiling. The condition is that the beneficial owner of the dividends be a resident of the other Contracting State. Art. 10(2).	None. There is no shareholding threshold and no lower tier. The India-Belgium Agreement has never had one. Note that the Protocol MFN clause does not reach dividends — it is confined to royalties and fees for…	Article 10, paragraph 2
Interest	Two rates, split by lender type. Art. 11(2): (a) 10 per cent of the gross amount if such interest is paid on any loan of whatever kind granted by A bank; and (b) 15 per cent of the gross amount in all other cases. Both are conditional on the beneficial owner of the interest being a resident of the other Contracting State. The structure is identical to Denmark's, but without Denmark's date gateway — there is no requirement that the loan be given or the debt created after entry into force.	There is no government or central-bank exemption anywhere in this treaty. This is the significant negative finding on Belgium and it is unusual enough to be worth stating flatly. Article 11 has six paragraphs…	Article 11, paragraph 2
Royalties	10 per cent of the gross amount, conditional on the beneficial owner being a resident of the other Contracting State — Art. 12(2) as substituted with effect from 1 April 1998 in India and 1 January 1998 in Belgium by paragraph I of Notification No. S.O. 54(E) dated 19-1-2001, issued under the Protocol MFN clause on the strength of the India-Sweden Convention. The original 1993 rate was 20 per cent. A single flat ceiling for royalties and FTS alike.	The royalty definition was also cut down and this is the scope limb of the MFN clause in operation. Art. 12(3)(a) as substituted by paragraph II of S.O. 54(E) now reads: payments of any kind received as…	Article 12, paragraph 2
Fees for technical services	10 per cent of the gross amount — the same flat ceiling as royalties, Art. 12(2) as substituted by S.O. 54(E) with effect from 1 April 1998 in India and 1 January 1998 in Belgium.	Art. 12(3)(b) — not touched by S.O. 54(E), which substituted only sub-paragraph (a): 'fees for technical services' means payments of any kind to any person, other than payments to an employee of the person…	Article 12, paragraph 2 and 3(b)

Status

In force	1 October 1997 — the Agreement and its Protocol were both signed at brussels on 26 April 1993 and entered into force on the thirtieth day after the receipt of the later of the two notifications under Art. 29(1). Effect: in India for income arising in any previous year beginning on or after 1 April 1998; in Belgium for tax due at source on income credited or payable on or after 1 January 1998, and for other tax on income derived during any taxable period ending on or after 31 December 1998. Art. 29(2) terminates the earlier India-Belgium Agreement and Protocol signed 7 February 1974 and the Supplementary Protocol of 20 October 1984. MLI entered into force 1 October 2019 for both India and Belgium; India deposited its instrument of ratification 25 June 2019 and Belgium 26 June 2019.
Given effect by	G.S.R. 632(E), dated 31-10-1997 — issued under s.90 of the Income-tax Act 1961, s.24A of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act 1964 and s.44A of the Wealth-tax Act 1957, as recited in the later notification S.O. 54(E). Note the mismatch: the Agreement itself covers taxes on income only — Art. 2(2)(a) lists the Indian income-tax including surcharge and the surtax, with no wealth-tax, and there is no capital article — yet the enabling notification was issued under the Wealth-tax Act as well.
Modified by the MLI	Yes — a synthesised text exists. Prepared jointly by the Competent Authorities of India and Belgium. No separate publication date is printed. Based on India's MLI position of 25 June 2019 and Belgium's of 26 June 2019.
Principal purpose test	Yes — MLI Art. 7(1), in the synthesised text, placed after article 28 (Diplomatic and Consular Officials). Its operative words are that it 'applies and supersedes the provisions of this Agreement'. As with Spain, the box identifies no paragraph that IT replaces — but unlike Spain, there is nothing for it to sit alongside, because the Agreement contains no bilateral anti-abuse article at all. The PPT is therefore the only general anti-abuse rule in the India-Belgium treaty, and it is entirely MLI-derived. It has effect in India for withholding taxes where the event occurs on or after 1 April 2020 and for other taxes for periods beginning on or after 1 April 2020.

Dividends

Rate	15 per cent of the gross amount — a single flat ceiling. The condition is that the beneficial owner of the dividends be a resident of the other Contracting State. Art. 10(2).
The holding that unlocks it	None. There is no shareholding threshold and no lower tier. The India-Belgium Agreement has never had one. Note that the Protocol MFN clause does not reach dividends — it is confined to royalties and fees for technical services — so the 15 per cent cannot be reduced by importing the 10 per cent Sweden dividend rate. This is the sharpest illustration in the batch of why the scope of the MFN clause itself matters: the Sweden clause covers Articles 10, 11 and 12; the Belgium clause covers only royalties and FTS.
Where this comes from	Article 10, paragraph 2

Art. 10(3) carries an extra Belgian-specific sentence in the dividend definition: the term 'means also income — even paid in the form of interest — derived from capital invested by the members of a company other than a company with share capital, which is a resident of Belgium.' Art. 11(3) then expressly carves that income out of the interest definition, so it is taxed as a dividend at 15 per cent and not as interest. Art. 10(4) disapplies paras 1 and 2 on a PE or fixed-base connection and routes to Article 7 or Article 14. Art. 10(5) is the ordinary bar on extra-territorial taxation. On the Belgian side, Art. 23(3)(c) gives a participation exemption for dividends received from an Indian company under the conditions and limits of Belgian law.

Interest

Rate	Two rates, split by lender type. Art. 11(2): (a) 10 per cent of the gross amount if such interest is paid on any loan of whatever kind granted by A bank; and (b) 15 per cent of the gross amount in all other cases. Both are conditional on the beneficial owner of the interest being a resident of the other Contracting State. The structure is identical to Denmark's, but without Denmark's date gateway — there is no requirement that the loan be given or the debt created after entry into force.
Exemptions	There is no government or central-bank exemption anywhere in this treaty. This is the significant negative finding on Belgium and it is unusual enough to be worth stating flatly. Article 11 has six paragraphs — 1 (concurrent taxing right), 2 (the two rate limbs), 3 (definition), 4 (PE disapplication), 5 (source rule), 6 (special relationship) — and no exemption paragraph at all. Nor is the exemption located anywhere else. The Agreement and the Protocol were searched for 'exempt', 'Reserve Bank', 'Central Bank' and 'Government of'; the only exemptions found are in Article 20 (teachers and researchers), Article 21 (students, apprentices and trainees) and Article 23 (the Belgian exemption-with-progression method). There is no separate government-income article, no schedule of approved institutions, and no competent-authority agreement mechanism of the Sweden kind. The practical consequence: interest arising in India and paid to the Kingdom of Belgium, to a Belgian region or community, or to the Nationale Bank van België / Banque Nationale de Belgique attracts the ordinary Art. 11(2) ceilings — 10 per cent if the lender is a bank, 15 per cent otherwise — and relies for exemption, if at all, on Indian domestic law (s.10(15) of the Income-tax Act) rather than on the treaty. Art. 11(4) disapplies paragraphs 1 and 2 where the debt-claim is effectively connected with a PE or fixed base, and routes the income into Article 7 or Article 14.
Where this comes from	Article 11, paragraph 2

Art. 11(3) is the ordinary wide interest definition — debt-claims of every kind, whether or not secured by mortgage and whether or not carrying a right to participate in the debtor's profits, including Government securities and bonds or debentures with premiums and prizes — but with the Belgian-specific exclusion that the term 'shall not include for the purpose of this Article interest regarded as dividends under the second sentence of paragraph 3 of Article 10'. Unusually, there is no exclusion for penalty charges for late payment. Art. 11(5) is the ordinary source rule with the PE deemed-source override. Art. 11(6) is the special-relationship rule and, unlike most treaties, it does not close with 'due regard being had to the other provisions of this Convention'.

Royalties

Rate	10 per cent of the gross amount, conditional on the beneficial owner being a resident of the other Contracting State — Art. 12(2) as substituted with effect from 1 April 1998 in India and 1 January 1998 in Belgium by paragraph I of Notification No. S.O. 54(E) dated 19-1-2001, issued under the Protocol MFN clause on the strength of the India-Sweden Convention. The original 1993 rate was 20 per cent. A single flat ceiling for royalties and FTS alike.
Where this comes from	Article 12, paragraph 2

Rate

10 per cent of the gross amount, conditional on the beneficial owner being a resident of the other Contracting State — Art. 12(2) as substituted with effect from 1 April 1998 in India and 1 January 1998 in Belgium by paragraph I of Notification No. S.O. 54(E) dated 19-1-2001, issued under the Protocol MFN clause on the strength of the India-Sweden Convention. The original 1993 rate was 20 per cent. A single flat ceiling for royalties and FTS alike.

Where this comes from

Article 12, paragraph 2

The royalty definition was also cut down and this is the scope limb of the MFN clause in operation. Art. 12(3)(a) as substituted by paragraph II of S.O. 54(E) now reads: payments of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph films, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. The words dropped from the 1993 text are (i) 'or films or tapes used for radio or television broadcasting' and (ii) the entire equipment limb, 'or for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment'. Equipment hire charges are therefore no longer royalties under this treaty and, absent a PE, fall into Article 22 (Other Income). Note also that the substituted sub-paragraph as printed in the notification reads 'plan' while the version printed in the article itself reads 'plant' — the notification text, which is the operative one, reads 'plan'.

Fees for technical services

Rate	10 per cent of the gross amount — the same flat ceiling as royalties, Art. 12(2) as substituted by S.O. 54(E) with effect from 1 April 1998 in India and 1 January 1998 in Belgium.
Make-available requirement	No
Where this comes from	Article 12, paragraph 2 and 3(b)

Art. 12(3)(b) — not touched by S.O. 54(E), which substituted only sub-paragraph (a): 'fees for technical services' means payments of any kind to any person, other than payments to an employee of the person making the payments and to any individual for independent personal services mentioned in article 14, in consideration for services of a managerial, technical or consultancy nature, including the provision of services of technical or other personnel. There is no make-available requirement. This is the point the MFN notification did not reach: S.O. 54(E) imported Sweden's rate and Sweden's royalty definition, but Sweden's FTS definition (Art. 12(3)(b) of the Sweden Convention) is in substantially the same terms as Belgium's — managerial, technical or consultancy, with an Articles 14 and 15 carve-out and no make-available limb — so there was nothing narrower to import on the FTS side. A claim that the Belgian FTS definition should now carry a make-available limb would have to be founded on some other Indian-OECD treaty and would require a further exercise of the clause; no such notification exists.

Capital gains on shares

Treatment	Two source-taxing limbs and a residence-only residue. (a) Art. 13(4), as modified by MLI Art. 9(1)(b): gains from the alienation of shares of the capital stock of a company the property of which consists directly or indirectly principally of immovable property situated in a Contracting State may be taxed in that State — and the rule now applies to shares or comparable interests, such as interests in A partnership or trust, in addition to shares or rights already covered. Critically, because the MLI box for Belgium is Art. 9(1)(b) and not Art. 9(4), there is no 365-day look-back and no more-than-50-per-cent-of-value test: the old 'consists principally of immovable property' formula, tested at alienation, survives. (b) Art. 13(5), untouched by the MLI: gains from the alienation of shares other than those in paragraph 4, forming part of A participation of at least 10 per cent of the capital stock of a company which is a resident of a Contracting State, may be taxed in that State. This uses the spanish 'forming part of a participation' formula, not the Danish 'such shares represent' formula, so it is the size of the participation of which the shares form part that is tested. (c) Art. 13(6): gains on any other property are taxable only in the State of residence, with no subject-to-tax proviso and no emigration tail.
Grandfathering	None. No grandfathering date, no acquisition cut-off, no transitional rate and no limitation-of-benefits gateway attached to Article 13.
Conditions	The 10 per cent test in Art. 13(5) is a participation test, not a parcel test. There is no holding-period condition, no beneficial-ownership condition and no subject-to-tax condition anywhere in Article 13. The only overlay is the MLI Art. 7(1) principal purpose test, which now supersedes the whole Agreement.
Where this comes from	Article 13, paragraph 4 (as modified by MLI Art. 9(1)(b)), 5 and 6

Permanent establishment

Construction or installation PE	More than six months — Art. 5(2)(j), covering a building site or construction, installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith, aggregated 'together with other such sites, projects or activities, if any'. The second, alternative limb in the same sub-paragraph is the qualifier that must not be truncated: a project or supervisory activity being incidental to the sale of machinery or equipment creates a PE even where it continues for a period not exceeding six months, if the charges payable for the project or supervisory activity exceed 10 per cent of the sale price of the machinery and equipment. There is no rolling twelve-month window.
Service PE	There is no service PE limb of any kind — no day-count for the furnishing of services. What exists instead is extraordinary in its placement: the mineral-oils rule is not a proviso or a separate paragraph here but a named item in the art. 5(2) inclusive list. Art. 5(2)(h) reads simply: 'the provision of services or facilities in connection with or supply of plant and machinery on hire used or to be used in, the prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils'. It carries no duration threshold at all, and because it sits in the list of things a permanent establishment 'includes especially', it is not even framed as a deeming rule. Art. 5(2)(g) likewise makes 'an installation or structure, used for the exploration or exploitation of natural resources' a PE with no time threshold — where Spain requires three months and Denmark requires 183 days in any twelve-month period.
Agency PE	Yes, and it is now partly the MLI form. Art. 5(4) has three limbs: (a) habitually exercises an authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the enterprise, unless activities are limited to purchasing — modified by MLI Art. 12(1) into the commissionnaire rule; (b) the stock-and-delivery limb, untouched; and (c) habitually secures orders in the first-mentioned State, exclusively or almost exclusively, for the enterprise itself or for the enterprise and other enterprises which are controlled by IT or have A controlling interest in IT — note the narrower group formula here ('controlled by it or have a controlling interest in it'), which does not reach sister companies under common control, whereas Art. 5(5) uses the wider 'controlling, controlled by, or subject to the same common control' formula. Art. 5(5), the independent-agent saving, is modified by MLI Art. 12(2), which substitutes the 'exclusively or almost exclusively on behalf of one or more closely related enterprises' test. Art. 5(6) is the no-PE-by-control rule.
Where this comes from	Article 5

Art. 5(2) also lists (e) 'a workshop or A warehouse' — a bare warehouse, with no 'in relation to a person providing storage facilities for others' qualifier of the kind Spain, Italy, Sweden and Denmark all carry, which makes the Belgian warehouse limb materially wider — and (i) 'a premises used as a sales outlet or for receiving or soliciting orders'. The art. 5(3) exemption list is the shortest in the batch: only four sub-paragraphs — (a) storage or display facilities, (b) stock for storage or display, (c) a fixed place solely for purchasing goods or merchandise or for collecting information, and (d) a fixed place solely for scientific research. There is no processing-by-another-enterprise exemption, no general preparatory-or-auxiliary catch-all, no combination clause, and no preparatory-or-auxiliary qualifier on any of the four — and the MLI Art. 13(2) overlay does not apply to this treaty, so those four exemptions remain automatic. What the MLI does add is Art. 13(4) anti-fragmentation. There is no insurance PE limb.

Anti-abuse: limitation of benefits, and the MLI

LOB	None in the Agreement itself. There is no limitation-of-benefits article, no entitlement-to-benefits article and no anti-abuse article of any description in the 1993 text or in the Protocol. The articles were checked end to end and run article 24 non-discrimination, article 25 mutual agreement procedure, article 26 exchange of information (substituted 2025), article 27 assistance in the collection of taxes (inserted 2025), article 28 diplomatic and consular officials, article 29 entry into force, article 30 termination. Note that the Agreement jumps from Article 25 to Article 28 because Articles 26 and 27 were inserted later.
PPT	Yes — MLI Art. 7(1), in the synthesised text, placed after article 28 (Diplomatic and Consular Officials). Its operative words are that it 'applies and supersedes the provisions of this Agreement'. As with Spain, the box identifies no paragraph that IT replaces — but unlike Spain, there is nothing for it to sit alongside, because the Agreement contains no bilateral anti-abuse article at all. The PPT is therefore the only general anti-abuse rule in the India-Belgium treaty, and it is entirely MLI-derived. It has effect in India for withholding taxes where the event occurs on or after 1 April 2020 and for other taxes for periods beginning on or after 1 April 2020.
Subject to tax	None.
Where this comes from	Article MLI Art. 7(1) only; there is no bilateral anti-abuse article

Eleven MLI boxes. (1) Art. 6(1): the anti-treaty-shopping preamble is included in the preamble. (2) Art. 11(1) applies and supersedes: the saving clause — the Agreement does not affect a Contracting State's taxation of its own residents except with respect to the benefits granted under Art. 9 as modified by MLI Art. 17(1) and Articles 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 28. Only two treaties in this sweep carry the saving clause (Belgium and the Russian Federation). (3) Art. 13(4) anti-fragmentation applies to Art. 5(3). Note what is absent: MLI Art. 13(2), the preparatory-or-auxiliary overlay on the specific-activity exemptions, does not appear — so unlike Spain, the Belgian Art. 5(3) exemptions remain automatic on their own terms and only the anti-fragmentation rule is added on top. (4) Art. 12(1) at Art. 5(4)(a): the commissionnaire rule. (5) Art. 12(2) at Art. 5(5): the replaced independent-agent test with the closely-related exclusivity disqualifier. (6) Art. 15(1): the 'closely related' definition. (7) Art. 17(1) applies and supersedes: corresponding adjustments — the Agreement as signed had no corresponding-adjustment paragraph in Article 9, and the MLI supplies one. (8) MLI art. 9(1)(b) applies to Art. 13(4) — and this is the box a practitioner must read precisely: it extends the immovable-property-company gains rule to 'shares or comparable interests, such as interests in A partnership or trust (to the extent that such shares or interests are not already covered) in addition to any shares or rights already covered'. IT is art. 9(1)(b), not art. 9(4). There is therefore no 365-day look-back for Belgium and no more-than-50-per-cent-of-value test — the old 'consists directly or indirectly principally of immovable property' formula survives untouched, merely extended to comparable interests. Contrast Spain, whose Art. 13(4) equivalent was replaced wholesale by MLI Art. 9(4). (9) MLI Art. 16(1) second sentence replaces the second sentence of Art. 25(1): the map time limit rises from two years to three years from the first notification. (10) MLI Art. 16(3) second sentence applies: the competent authorities 'may also consult together for the elimination of double taxation in cases not provided for in the Agreement' — a sentence the 1993 Article 25(3) did not contain. (11) MLI Art. 7(1) — the principal purpose test — 'applies and supersedes the provisions of this Agreement', placed after Article 28 (Diplomatic and Consular Officials). MLI effect dates: in India for taxes withheld at source where the event occurs on or after 1 april 2020; in Belgium for taxes withheld at source where the event occurs on or after 1 january 2020; and in both States for all other taxes on income for taxable periods beginning on or after 1 April 2020.

The protocols, in order

A treaty read without its protocols is a wrong answer.

Notification No. S.O. 54(E), dated 19-1-2001 — the MFN notification. This is the second instance in the whole of this sweep of India actually exercising a Protocol most-favoured-nation clause by notification, the first being the Netherlands (S.O. 693(E) dated 30-8-1999). Its recitals were read in full. It recites G.S.R. 632(E); recites paragraph 1 of the Protocol of 26 April 1993; and then recites 'in the Convention between India and sweden which became effective on the 1st April, 1998, in the case of India, and on the 1st January, 1998, in the case of Sweden, which state is a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Government of India has limited the taxation at source on royalties and fees for technical services to a rate lower and A scope more restricted than that provided in the Agreement between India and Belgium'. It then directs two modifications, both with effect from 1 april 1998 in India and 1 january 1998 in Belgium — that is, retrospectively, nearly three years before the notification date. (I) art. 12(2) substituted: the rate falls from 20 per cent to 10 per cent of the gross amount of royalties or fees for technical services. (II) art. 12(3)(a) substituted: the royalty definition is narrowed to match Sweden's — the substituted text drops both the words 'or films or tapes used for radio or television broadcasting' and the whole equipment limb ('for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment'). This is the scope limb of the clause actually operating, not just the rate limb. Note the notification is expressed to be made under s.90 of the Income-tax Act alone, although the parent notification invoked three statutes.
Notification No. S.O. 5074(E) [No. 160/2025 / F. No. 505/2/1989-ftd-I], dated 10-11-2025, w.e.f. 10-11-2025 — verified directly from the amendment apparatus on the article 3 record, where footnote 1 reads 'Substituted by Notification No. S.O. 5074(E) [No. 160/2025/F. No. 505/2/1989-ftd-I], dated 10-11-2025, w.e.f. 10-11-2025' and footnote 2 reads 'Inserted by' the same notification. It works four administrative changes: Art. 3(1)(d) substituted (the competent authority for Belgium is now 'the Minister of Finance of the federal Government and/or of the Government of a Region and/or of a Community, or his authorised representative'); Art. 3(1)(k) inserted, defining 'criminal tax matters' as tax matters involving intentional conduct, whether before or after the entry into force of this agreement, liable to prosecution under the criminal laws and/or the tax laws of the applicant Party; article 26 substituted with the modern foreseeably-relevant exchange-of-information article including the use-for-other-purposes permission, the obtain-even-if-no-domestic-interest obligation and the bank-secrecy override; and article 27 (Assistance in the Collection of Taxes) inserted, not restricted by Articles 1 and 2. This is the most recent amendment in the whole sweep and is barely nine months old.
The MLI modifies the Agreement; see synthesised_text.

The words themselves

Quoted from the treaty as notified.

If under any Convention or Agreement between India and a third State being a member of the OECD which enters into force after 1st January, 1990, India limits its taxation on royalties or fees for technical services to a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate or scope provided for in the present Agreement on the said items of income, the same rate or scope as provided for in that Convention or Agreement on the said items of income shall also apply under the present Agreement with effect from the date from which the present Agreement or the said Convention or Agreement is effective, whichever date is later.

Article Protocol, paragraph 1, headed 'Ad Articles 5, 7 and 12' of the treaty as notified.

And whereas in the Convention between India and Sweden which became effective on the 1st April, 1998, in the case of India, and on the 1st January, 1998, in the case of Sweden, which state is a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Government of India has limited the taxation at source on royalties and fees for technical services to a rate lower and a scope more restricted than that provided in the Agreement between India and Belgium on the said items of income;

Article Notification No. S.O. 54(E), dated 19-1-2001, paragraph fourth recital of the treaty as notified.

the provision of services or facilities in connection with or supply of plant and machinery on hire used or to be used in, the prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils;

Article 5, paragraph 2(h) of the treaty as notified.

the competent authority of that State shall notify the competent authority of the other Contracting State of the terms of the corresponding paragraph in the Convention or Agreement with that third State immediately after the entry into force of that Convention or Agreement and, if the competent authority of the other Contracting State so requests, the provisions of this sub-paragraph shall be amended by protocol to reflect such terms.

Article 7, paragraph 3, proviso of the treaty as notified.

the term "criminal tax matters" means tax matters involving intentional conduct, whether before or after the entry into force of this Agreement, which is liable to prosecution under the criminal laws and/or the tax laws of the applicant Party.

Article 3, paragraph 1(k), inserted w.e.f. 10-11-2025 of the treaty as notified.

What to watch

Belgium is the one treaty in this batch where the MFN clause has actually been notified. Notification S.O. 54(E) dated 19-1-2001 exercised it on the strength of the India-Sweden Convention and did so on both limbs — rate and scope. Where Spain and Sweden claimants must argue that their clause operates of its own force, a Belgian claimant points to a s.90 notification on the face of the treaty.
The notification operates retrospectively by nearly three years, from 1 April 1998 in India although issued on 19 January 2001. That is a function of the 'whichever date is later' rule in the Protocol, not of any special retrospective power.
The scope import removed the equipment limb. After S.O. 54(E), payments for the use of industrial, commercial or scientific equipment are not royalties under the India-Belgium Agreement. Absent a PE they fall into Article 22 (Other Income) and are residence-only. Any page that prints the 1993 royalty definition for Belgium is printing a definition that has not been law since 1998.
The synthesised text prints the pre-MFN article 12 and this is A trap. The India-Belgium Synthesised Text reproduces Art. 12(2) as '20* per cent' and reproduces the 1993 royalty definition complete with the broadcasting-films words and the equipment limb, marking the rate with an asterisk. It does not incorporate the S.O. 54(E) substitutions. A practitioner who reads only the synthesised text — the document that governs for MLI purposes — will get the royalty rate and the royalty definition wrong. Both documents must be read together: the synthesised text for the MLI overlay, the Comprehensive Agreement record for the MFN-substituted Article 12.
There is no government or central-bank interest exemption at all. Article 11 has no exemption paragraph and there is none elsewhere in the Agreement or Protocol. This is the only treaty among the five read so far in this batch with that gap.
The MLI gave belgium art. 9(1)(b), not art. 9(4). So the immovable-property share-gains rule was extended to comparable interests in partnerships and trusts but was not rewritten with the 365-day look-back or the more-than-50-per-cent-of-value test. Spain got the wholesale replacement; Belgium got only the extension. Reading across from one treaty to the other on this point produces a wrong answer.
The map time limit is now three years, not two. Art. 25(1) as signed gave two years; MLI Art. 16(1) replaces the second sentence with a three-year limit. But the original two-year figure still appears in the Comprehensive Agreement record — only the synthesised text carries the replacement.
MLI art. 11(1), the saving clause, applies to belgium. The Agreement does not affect a Contracting State's taxation of its own residents except as regards the benefits under Article 9 as modified, and Articles 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 28. Only two treaties in this whole sweep carry it — Belgium and the Russian Federation.
MLI art. 17(1) supplies A corresponding-adjustment rule the treaty never had. Article 9 as signed had only the primary-adjustment limb; the MLI now obliges the other State to make an appropriate adjustment.
The article 5(3) exemption list has only four items and no preparatory-or-auxiliary catch-all. There is no exemption for maintaining a stock for processing by another enterprise, no combination clause, and no general 'other activity of a preparatory or auxiliary character' limb. And because MLI Art. 13(2) does not apply to this treaty, the four that exist remain automatic — a rare case where the treaty is simultaneously narrower (fewer exemptions) and more generous (no preparatory-or-auxiliary condition) than its MLI-modified neighbours.
The warehouse limb is bare. Art. 5(2)(e) reads 'a workshop or a warehouse' full stop — no 'in relation to a person providing storage facilities for others' qualifier. Every other treaty in this batch carries that qualifier. Combined with the Art. 5(3)(a)-(b) exemptions covering only storage and display, the position on Belgian warehousing in India is materially harsher than on Spanish, Italian, Swedish or Danish warehousing.
The mineral-oils rule is in the inclusive list, not in A proviso, and has no time limit. Art. 5(2)(h) simply states that a permanent establishment includes 'the provision of services or facilities in connection with or supply of plant and machinery on hire' for prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils.
Article 22(3) gives the source state A taxing right over unclassified income arising there, overriding the residence-only rule in paragraph 1.
Article 23 is an exemption-with-progression article on the belgian side, not a credit article, except for dividends under Art. 10(2), interest under Art. 11(2) or (6) and royalties under Art. 12(2) or (6), which get an ordinary credit. Art. 23(3)(d) has an anti-double-dip rule where Indian PE losses have already been deducted in Belgium, and Art. 23(3)(e) carries a one-way Belgian tax-sparing rule for Indian incentive provisions.
The 2025 amendment is very recent — 10 November 2025 — and inserted an assistance-in-collection article and a modern exchange-of-information article, together with a 'criminal tax matters' definition that expressly reaches conduct occurring before the Agreement entered into force.

What this page does not tell you. The text of the asterisk footnote against '20* per cent' in Article 12(2) of the Synthesised Text. The asterisk is visible in the printed text but the note behind it has not been read. It presumably cross-refers to S.O. 54(E), but that is not established from the material read, and the synthesised text as rendered otherwise prints the unmodified 1993 Article 12. The date of signature and entry into force of the instrument that Notification No. S.O. 5074(E) dated 10-11-2025 gives effect to. No separate text of it is available here and the Introduction has not been updated to mention it — the Introduction still reads 'as amended by Notification No. S.O. 54(E), dated 19-1-2001' only. The 2025 changes are visible solely as footnoted substitutions and insertions in the article text. The full text of the pre-2025 Art. 3(1)(d) definition of competent authority. The footnote text available here breaks off at "'(d) the term \"competent authority\" means :— • ...". Whether the competent authorities have ever acted under the Art. 7(3) proviso — that is, whether India or Belgium has notified the other of a relaxed PE-expense restriction in a later OECD treaty, and whether any request to amend by protocol has been made. Neither is recorded in the sources used here. Whether the competent authorities have consulted under Protocol paragraph 3 following changes to Indian or Belgian tax-credit law. No such consultation is recorded. The content of the asterisk footnote on Notification G.S.R. 632(E) in the Introduction, which was visible but has not been read. Why the enabling notification G.S.R. 632(E) was issued under the Wealth-tax Act 1957 when the Agreement covers taxes on income only and has no capital article.

The India–Belgium tax treaty