India–New Zealand 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, conditional on the recipient being the beneficial owner of the dividends — Art. 10(2) as amended by Article 4 of the Second Protocol, which replaced '20 per cent' with '15 per cent' with effect from 1 April 2000 in India. A single flat ceiling.	None. There is no shareholding threshold and no lower tier. Art. 10(2) does however carry an additional sentence not found in most treaties: 'The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall by mutual…	Article 10, paragraph 2
Interest	10 per cent of the gross amount, conditional on the recipient being the beneficial owner of the interest — Art. 11(2) as amended by Article 5 of the Second Protocol, which replaced '15 per cent' with '10 per cent'. The same competent-authority mode-of-application sentence appears here.	The exemption is in the article itself, at Art. 11(3), and it was not touched by any of the three Protocols. Interest arising in a Contracting State is exempt from tax in that State provided it is derived and…	Article 11, paragraph 2 and 3
Royalties	10 per cent of the gross amount, conditional on the recipient being the beneficial owner — Art. 12(2) as amended by Article 6 of the Second Protocol, which replaced '30 per cent' with '10 per cent'. That is the single largest treaty rate cut recorded anywhere in this four-batch sweep: a two-thirds reduction in one step, effective in India from 1 April 2000. A single flat ceiling for royalties and FTS alike.	Art. 12(3) is the full wide royalty definition, including the equipment limb and an unusually granular broadcasting limb — 'cinematograph films, films or video tapes for use in connection with television or…	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 amended in 1999. The pre-Protocol rate was 30 per cent.	Art. 12(4): 'fees for technical services' means payments of any kind to any person, other than payments to an employee of the persons making the payments and to any individual for independent personal services…	Article 12, paragraph 2 and 4

Status

In force	3 December 1986 — the Convention was signed at auckland on 17 October 1986 and came into force on the notification by both Contracting States of compliance with their constitutional requirements under Art. 28(1). Effect: in New Zealand for any income year beginning on or after 1 April in the calendar year next following entry into force; in India for any previous year beginning on or after 1 April in the calendar year next following. Note the unusual entry-into-force rule in Art. 28(2), which refers to 'the notification' in the singular rather than to the later of the two.
Given effect by	G.S.R. 314(E), dated 27-3-1987 — issued under s.90 of the Income-tax Act 1961 and s.24A of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act 1964, because Art. 2(1)(b) covers the Indian income-tax including surcharge and the surtax. On the New Zealand side Art. 2(1)(a) covers the income-tax and the excess retention tax. The Convention is an income-only treaty with no capital article.
Modified by the MLI	No synthesised text was found for this treaty in the source searched.
Principal purpose test	None. No principal purposes test and no main-purpose test anywhere in the Convention or its three Protocols, and no Synthesised Text exists in the sources used here to supply one. India-New Zealand is therefore, with Italy and Denmark, one of the three treaties in this batch with no general anti-abuse rule on the face of the instrument.

Dividends

Rate	15 per cent of the gross amount, conditional on the recipient being the beneficial owner of the dividends — Art. 10(2) as amended by Article 4 of the Second Protocol, which replaced '20 per cent' with '15 per cent' with effect from 1 April 2000 in India. A single flat ceiling.
The holding that unlocks it	None. There is no shareholding threshold and no lower tier. Art. 10(2) does however carry an additional sentence not found in most treaties: 'The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall by mutual agreement settle the mode of application of this limitation.' The same sentence appears in Art. 11(2) and Art. 12(2). No such mutual agreement appears in the sources used here.
Where this comes from	Article 10, paragraph 2

Art. 10(3) is the ordinary dividend definition. 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. Art. 11(4) expressly excludes from the interest definition 'income dealt with in article 10', so there is no overlap between the two articles.

Interest

Rate	10 per cent of the gross amount, conditional on the recipient being the beneficial owner of the interest — Art. 11(2) as amended by Article 5 of the Second Protocol, which replaced '15 per cent' with '10 per cent'. The same competent-authority mode-of-application sentence appears here.
Exemptions	The exemption is in the article itself, at Art. 11(3), and it was not touched by any of the three Protocols. Interest arising in a Contracting State is exempt from tax in that State provided it is derived and beneficially owned by — both limbs required — (i) the Government, a political sub-division or a local authority of the other Contracting State; or (ii) the central bank of the other Contracting State; or (iii) 'in the case of india, the export import bank of india; in the case of new zealand, any financial institution agreed to be of A similar nature to the export import bank of india by the competent authorities of both contracting states.' the asymmetry in limb (iii) is the point to note: India's exim Bank is named outright and needs no agreement, whereas on the New Zealand side no institution is named at all and the exemption operates only for a body the competent authorities have agreed to be of a similar nature to exim Bank. No such agreement appears anywhere in the sources used here, so the New Zealand half of limb (iii) cannot be shown to operate for any body. There is no guarantee or credit-support limb and no approval-based limb of the Spain or Austria kind. The list is closed apart from the New Zealand agreement mechanism. Art. 11(5) disapplies paragraphs (1) and (2) only where the debt-claim is effectively connected with a PE or fixed base. Paragraph 3 is not disapplied, so the exemption survives a PE connection.
Where this comes from	Article 11, paragraph 2 and 3

Art. 11(4) is the ordinary wide interest definition but with an express exclusion of 'income dealt with in article 10', and with penalty charges for late payment excluded. Art. 11(6) is the ordinary source rule with the PE deemed-source override. Art. 11(7) is the special-relationship rule.

Royalties

Rate	10 per cent of the gross amount, conditional on the recipient being the beneficial owner — Art. 12(2) as amended by Article 6 of the Second Protocol, which replaced '30 per cent' with '10 per cent'. That is the single largest treaty rate cut recorded anywhere in this four-batch sweep: a two-thirds reduction in one step, effective in India from 1 April 2000. 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 recipient being the beneficial owner — Art. 12(2) as amended by Article 6 of the Second Protocol, which replaced '30 per cent' with '10 per cent'. That is the single largest treaty rate cut recorded anywhere in this four-batch sweep: a two-thirds reduction in one step, effective in India from 1 April 2000. A single flat ceiling for royalties and FTS alike.

Where this comes from

Article 12, paragraph 2

Art. 12(3) is the full wide royalty definition, including the equipment limb and an unusually granular broadcasting limb — 'cinematograph films, films or video tapes for use in connection with television or tapes for use in connection with radio broadcasting'. Equipment hire is a royalty at 10 per cent. Art. 12(5) disapplies paras 1 and 2 on a PE or fixed-base connection and routes to Article 7 or Article 14. Art. 12(6) is the source rule with the PE deemed-source override; Art. 12(7) the special-relationship rule. The competent-authority mode-of-application sentence appears here too.

Fees for technical services

Rate	10 per cent of the gross amount — the same flat ceiling as royalties, Art. 12(2) as amended in 1999. The pre-Protocol rate was 30 per cent.
Make-available requirement	No
Where this comes from	Article 12, paragraph 2 and 4

Art. 12(4): 'fees for technical services' means payments of any kind to any person, other than payments to an employee of the persons 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 — the words 'make available' appear nowhere in the Convention or any of its three Protocols — and no ancillary-and-subsidiary limb. Managerial services are caught. This is the Belgium form of the definition, with a two-part carve-out for employees and for individuals rendering independent personal services under Article 14.

Capital gains on shares

Treatment	The article is headed 'alienation of property', not 'capital gains', and IT deals throughout with 'income or gains' — a wider formula that catches receipts New Zealand law may characterise as income rather than capital gain. Two source-taxing share limbs and a residence-only residue. (a) Art. 13(4): income or gains from the alienation of shares of the capital stock of a company where the property of the company consists directly or indirectly principally of immovable property situated in a Contracting State may be taxed in that State — no 365-day look-back and no more-than-50-per-cent test, since the MLI does not reach this treaty. (b) Art. 13(5): 'Income or gains from the alienation of shares other than those mentioned in paragraph (4) in a company which is a resident of a Contracting State may be taxed in that state' — with no threshold of any kind. This is the Italy, Austria and Poland sweep-up formula. Every share gain in a resident company is source-taxable. (c) Art. 13(6): income or gains from any other property are taxable only in the State of residence.
Grandfathering	None. No grandfathering date, no acquisition cut-off, no transitional rate and no limitation-of-benefits gateway attached to Article 13. The Second Protocol touched only paragraph 1 of Article 13, changing 'may be taxed' to 'may also be taxed' for immovable property; the share limbs were left exactly as signed in 1986.
Conditions	None whatever on the paragraph 5 limb beyond the company being a resident of the taxing State. There is no anti-abuse article and no PPT in this treaty, so nothing overlays Article 13 except the general Indian domestic law.
Where this comes from	Article 13, paragraph 4, 5 and 6

Permanent establishment

Construction or installation PE	More than six months — Art. 5(2)(j), covering a building site or a construction or installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith. The aggregation formula is the widest in the batch: the six months is measured for such site or project or supervisory activities 'together with other such sites or projects or activities, if any) or any combination thereof' — the words 'or any combination thereof' appear in no other treaty read in this sweep and expressly permit sites, projects and supervisory activities of different kinds to be added together. There is no rolling twelve-month window and no incidental-to-sale-of-machinery limb.
Service PE	There is no service PE limb and no day-count of any kind. But there is something considerably more aggressive: the proviso to Art. 5(2), which has no counterpart in any other treaty in this batch and is not confined to mineral oils. It reads: 'Provided that for the purposes of this paragraph an enterprise shall be deemed to have A permanent establishment in A contracting state and to carry on business through that permanent establishment if IT carries on activities in that state in connection with the exploration or exploitation of natural resources in that state.' Note what it does not require: no time threshold whatever, no fixed place, no installation or structure, no provision of services or facilities, no hire of plant and machinery, and no restriction to mineral oils — any activities in connection with the exploration or exploitation of any natural resources suffice. Art. 5(2)(k) separately makes 'an installation or structure for the exploration or exploitation of natural resources' a PE, also with no time threshold.
Agency PE	Yes but short — Art. 5(4) has only two limbs, as in Poland: (a) has and habitually exercises an authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the enterprise, unless the activities are limited to purchasing; and (b) the stock-and-delivery limb. There is no order-securing limb and no manufacturing-or-processing limb. And art. 5(5) is the plainest independent-agent saving in the batch: 'An enterprise of a Contracting State shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business in that other State through a broker, general commission agent or any other agent of an independent status, provided that such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business.' full stop — there is no 'devoted wholly or almost wholly' disqualifier, no common-control extension, no exclusivity test and no arm's-length rebuttal. Every other treaty in this batch carries some disqualifier. Art. 5(6) is the no-PE-by-control rule.
Where this comes from	Article 5

Art. 5(2) also lists (g) a warehouse in relation to a person providing storage facilities for others, (h) a farm or plantation, and (i) 'premises used as a sales outlet' (without the order-receiving extension found in Italy, Denmark, Belgium and Poland). The Art. 5(3) exemption list is the old five-item form with a preparatory-or-auxiliary qualifier only in sub-paragraph (e); there is no combination clause, no home-grown anti-fragmentation sentence and — because there is no synthesised text — no MLI overlay of any kind. There is no insurance PE limb. Separately note article 8A (shipping), which is not a PE rule but operates like one: shipping profits are taxable only in the residence State under paragraph 1, but paragraph 2 permits the other State to tax profits derived from it 'provided that the tax so imposed shall not exceed 50 per cent of the tax which would have been chargeable on those profits in the absence of this Convention' — a half-tax rule of the kind also found in the Poland treaty. Art. 8A(4) extends shipping profits to profits from the use, maintenance or rental of containers (including trailers and related equipment) to the extent used in international traffic.

Anti-abuse: limitation of benefits, and the MLI

LOB	None. There is no limitation-of-benefits article, no entitlement-to-benefits article and no general anti-abuse article of any description in the Convention or in any of its three Protocols. The articles were checked end to end and run article 24 non-discrimination, article 25 mutual agreement procedure, article 26 exchange of information (substituted 2017), article 26A assistance in the collection of taxes (inserted 2017), article 27 diplomatic and consular officers, article 28 entry into force, article 29 termination. What does exist are two targeted anti-avoidance provisions, and they should not be mistaken for a general rule. (i) art. 24(5), inserted by Article 8(2) of the Second Protocol: 'This Article shall not apply to any provisions of the taxation laws of a Contracting State which are reasonably designed to prevent or defeat the avoidance or evasion of taxes.' That takes domestic anti-avoidance legislation outside the non-discrimination article altogether — it is a shield for domestic GAAR-type rules, not a treaty benefit-denial rule. (ii) the first protocol of 29 August 1996, which lets New Zealand withhold the Art. 23(3) tax-sparing credit where arrangements were entered into to take advantage of it, or where the benefit accrues to a person resident in neither State.
PPT	None. No principal purposes test and no main-purpose test anywhere in the Convention or its three Protocols, and no Synthesised Text exists in the sources used here to supply one. India-New Zealand is therefore, with Italy and Denmark, one of the three treaties in this batch with no general anti-abuse rule on the face of the instrument.
Subject to tax	None.
Where this comes from	Article 24(5) and the First Protocol only; there is no general anti-abuse article

No Synthesised Text for New Zealand has been identified from the sources used here. So none of the MLI-derived changes apply on the face of the record: no anti-treaty-shopping preamble, no preparatory-or-auxiliary overlay, no anti-fragmentation rule, no commissionnaire rule, no 365-day look-back on immovable-property share gains, and no principal purposes test. As with Sweden and Denmark, treat this as a gap in the material rather than a positive finding — New Zealand is an MLI signatory and no synthesised text is available here.

The protocols, in order

A treaty read without its protocols is a wrong answer.

G.S.R. 477(E), dated 21-4-1988 — recorded in the Introduction as an amendment to G.S.R. 314(E). Its content is not reproduced anywhere in the sources used here and no article carries a footnote traceable to it; it is most likely a correction.
Notification No. S.O. 166(E), dated 5-3-1997 — gives effect to the first protocol, signed at New Delhi on 29 august 1996 and in force 9 january 1997. Its full text was read. It has a single substantive article and it is an anti-abuse override on tax sparing: notwithstanding Art. 23(3), a New Zealand resident deriving Indian income of the kind covered by that paragraph shall not be deemed to have paid Indian tax where the New Zealand competent authority, after consulting the Indian competent authority, considers it inappropriate having regard to (a) whether any arrangements have been entered into by any person for the purpose of taking advantage of Art. 23(3) for the benefit of that person or any other person; (b) whether any benefit accrues or may accrue to A person who is neither A new zealand resident nor an indian resident; (c) the prevention of fraud or the avoidance of the covered taxes; and (d) any other matter either competent authority considers relevant, including submissions from the New Zealand resident. Art. 3 of that Protocol applies it to income derived on or after the first day of the month following entry into force.
Notification No. G.S.R. 37(E), dated 12-1-2000 — gives effect to the second protocol, signed at New Delhi on 21 june 1999 and in force 30 december 1999 (thirty days after the later notification, under Art. 9 of that Protocol), with effect in India for any previous year beginning on or after 1 April 2000. This is the rate protocol and it made very large cuts: art. 4 — in Art. 10(2) '20 per cent' is replaced by '15 per cent' (dividends); art. 5 — in Art. 11(2) '15 per cent' is replaced by '10 per cent' (interest); art. 6 — in Art. 12(2) '30 per cent' is replaced by '10 per cent' (royalties and fees for technical services). It also replaced Art. 3(1)(a)(ii) (the definition of India, now referring to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), replaced Art. 4(3) (adding the competent-authority fallback where place of effective management cannot be determined), replaced Art. 6(1) and Art. 13(1) (both changing 'may be taxed' to 'may also be taxed'), replaced Art. 24(2) (adding the express permission to tax a PE's profits at a higher rate), and inserted A new art. 24(5) — 'This Article shall not apply to any provisions of the taxation laws of a Contracting State which are reasonably designed to prevent or defeat the avoidance or evasion of taxes' — renumbering the old paragraph 5 as paragraph 6.
Notification No. S.O. 3512(E) [No. 93/2017 (F. No. 501/1/83-ftd-II)], dated 2-11-2017 — gives effect to the third protocol, signed at New Delhi on 26 october 2016 and in force 7 september 2017 (the date of the later notification, under Art. 3 of that Protocol). Its full text was read. It substitutes article 26 (Exchange of Information) with the modern foreseeably-relevant form, not restricted by Articles 1 and 2, including the use-for-other-purposes permission, the obtain-even-if-no-domestic-interest obligation and the bank-secrecy override; and inserts article 26A (Assistance in the Collection of Taxes), the full eight-paragraph revenue-claim model with conservancy measures, the exclusive-forum rule and the four public-policy and proportionality limits. Art. 4 of that Protocol provides that it forms an integral part of the Convention and remains in force as long as the Convention does. Note that this notification is not recited in the Introduction, which lists only G.S.R. 477(E) and G.S.R. 37(E) as amendments — it appears only further down in the text.
No MLI modification of this treaty is established here; see synthesised_text.

The words themselves

Quoted from the treaty as notified.

Provided that for the purposes of this paragraph an enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment in a Contracting State and to carry on business through that permanent establishment if it carries on activities in that State in connection with the exploration or exploitation of natural resources in that State.

Article 5, paragraph 2, proviso of the treaty as notified.

In paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Convention, "30 per cent" is replaced by "10 per cent".

Article Second Protocol of 21 June 1999, paragraph Article 6 of the treaty as notified.

Income or gains from the alienation of shares other than those mentioned in paragraph (4) in a company which is a resident of a Contracting State may be taxed in that State.

Article 13, paragraph 5 of the treaty as notified.

in the case of India, the Export Import Bank of India; in the case of New Zealand, any financial institution agreed to be of a similar nature to the Export Import Bank of India by the competent authorities of both Contracting States.

Article 11, paragraph 3(iii) of the treaty as notified.

This Article shall not apply to any provisions of the taxation laws of a Contracting State which are reasonably designed to prevent or defeat the avoidance or evasion of taxes.

Article 24, paragraph 5, inserted by Article 8(2) of the Second Protocol of the treaty as notified.

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), such profits to the extent that they are derived from the other Contracting State may also be taxed in that Contracting State but the tax so imposed shall not exceed 50 per cent of the tax which would have been chargeable on those profits in the absence of this Convention.

Article 8A, paragraph 2 of the treaty as notified.

What to watch

The rates on this treaty are all second-protocol rates and the original figures are still visible in the footnote markers. Dividends 15 per cent (was 20), interest 10 per cent (was 15), royalties and FTS 10 per cent (was 30). All three took effect in India for previous years beginning on or after 1 April 2000. Any assessment for an earlier year runs on the original figures.
The article 5(2) proviso is the widest natural-resources PE rule in the batch. It deems a PE from any activities carried on in connection with the exploration or exploitation of natural resources — no time threshold, no fixed place, no equipment, and not confined to mineral oils. Compare Spain (mineral oils, 30 days), Sweden and Austria (mineral oils, no threshold, but confined to services, facilities and plant hire), Denmark (exploration installations only, 183 days) and Norway (a dedicated offshore activities article with a 30-day rule and a 7.5 per cent cap). New Zealand's is the shortest and the broadest.
The independent-agent saving has no disqualifier at all. Art. 5(5) stops after 'acting in the ordinary course of their business'. There is no 'devoted wholly or almost wholly' test. Combined with a two-limb agency paragraph that has no order-securing limb, this is by a clear margin the most taxpayer-friendly agency position in the batch — and because there is no synthesised text, the MLI commissionnaire and exclusivity rules do not touch it.
Article 13 is 'alienation of property' and speaks of 'income or gains' throughout. That is deliberate and matters where New Zealand law treats a disposal receipt as income rather than as a capital gain; the article covers both.
All share gains are source-taxable with no threshold, under Art. 13(5).
The new zealand half of the interest exemption is not self-executing. Art. 11(3)(iii) names India's exim Bank outright but requires, on the New Zealand side, a competent-authority agreement identifying an institution 'of a similar nature'. No such agreement appears in the sources used here, so no New Zealand institution can presently be shown to qualify under that limb.
The competent authorities are obliged to settle the mode of application of the rate limitations in Articles 10, 11 and 12 by mutual agreement. Each of those articles says so in terms. No such agreement is recorded.
Article 8A(2) is A half-tax shipping rule, not an exemption. The source State may tax shipping profits derived from it, but at not more than 50 per cent of what would have been chargeable in the absence of the Convention. Quoting Art. 8A(1) alone gives the wrong answer.
Article 22 (other income) is A single sentence with A source carve-out built in: unclassified income is taxable only in the residence State 'except that, if such income arises in the other contracting state, IT may also be taxed in that other state'. There is no PE proviso and no exclusion for immovable property income — a shorter and blunter formula than the three-paragraph version used in the other treaties in this batch.
Tax sparing is one-way, narrow and subject to A veto. Art. 23(3) obliges new zealand alone to deem Indian tax paid where relief was granted under ss. 10(4), 10(4A) or 10(15)(iv) of the Income-tax Act 1961 or any other provision the competent authorities agree; the credit is capped at the lower of the New Zealand tax that would otherwise have been payable and the treaty rate limit. And the First Protocol of 1996 lets the New Zealand competent authority refuse the deemed credit outright on anti-avoidance grounds after consulting India. All three limbs must be read together.
The non-discrimination article has been cut back twice. Art. 24(2) as replaced in 1999 expressly permits a higher rate of tax on a PE's profits than on a domestic company's, with no numerical cap of the Austrian kind; Art. 24(4) permits distinguishing between residents and non-residents solely on the basis of residence; and Art. 24(5), inserted in 1999, disapplies the whole article to domestic anti-avoidance provisions. There is no deductibility paragraph at all — the interest, royalties and other disbursements limb found in Spain, Sweden and Denmark is absent.
The third protocol is not mentioned in the Introduction. The Introduction lists only G.S.R. 477(E) of 1988 and G.S.R. 37(E) of 2000 as amendments; Notification No. S.O. 3512(E) dated 2-11-2017, which brought in the substituted Article 26 and the new Article 26A from 7 September 2017, appears only further down in the text. A reader relying on the Introduction alone would date the treaty's exchange-of-information regime seventeen years out.
There are three separate protocols, each with its own notification and its own entry-into-force date — 9 January 1997, 30 December 1999 and 7 September 2017 — and they do entirely different things: anti-abuse on tax sparing, rates and definitions, and administrative assistance respectively.

What this page does not tell you. The content of Notification No. G.S.R. 477(E) dated 21-4-1988. It is recited in the Introduction as amending G.S.R. 314(E) but its text is not reproduced anywhere in the sources used here and no footnote in any article is traceable to it. The text of the asterisk footnote on Notification G.S.R. 314(E) in the Introduction, which was visible but has not been read. Whether the competent authorities have ever agreed, under Art. 11(3)(iii), on a New Zealand financial institution of a similar nature to the Export-Import Bank of India. Without such an agreement the New Zealand half of that limb is inoperative and no such agreement appears in the sources used here. Whether the competent authorities have settled the mode of application of the rate limitations in Articles 10(2), 11(2) and 12(2), which all three paragraphs require them to do. Whether any further provision has been agreed under Art. 23(3) beyond ss. 10(4), 10(4A) and 10(15)(iv) of the Income-tax Act 1961. Why no Synthesised Text for India-New Zealand has been identified from the sources used here. New Zealand is an MLI signatory; nothing in the primary material read establishes whether this is a gap in the material or the correct legal position, and the MLI position statements were not read. The individual footnote texts behind the amendment markers in Articles 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 24 have not been read. Their content is established indirectly, and reliably, from the full texts of the Second and Third Protocols reproduced alongside, each of which states exactly which paragraph it replaces or inserts. Article 28(2) refers to entry into force 'on the date of the notification referred to in paragraph (1)' in the singular, where paragraph (1) requires both States to notify. Which notification governs is not resolved on the face of the instrument; the Indian notification records 3 December 1986.

The India–New Zealand tax treaty