India–Spain 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 only condition is that the recipient be the beneficial owner of the dividends. Art. 11(2), first sentence.	None. There is no shareholding threshold anywhere in Article 11 and no lower tier. Practitioners used to the two-tier European pattern should note that India-Spain has never had one.	Article 11, paragraph 2
Interest	15 per cent of the gross amount, conditional on the recipient being the beneficial owner. Art. 12(2). This is one of the higher interest ceilings in the Indian network and it has never been reduced — no MFN notification has operated on it.	The exemptions are in the article itself, at Art. 12(3), not in the Protocol and not in a separate government-income article. Art. 12(3)(a)(i): interest arising in a Contracting State is exempt in that State…	Article 12, paragraph 2 and 3
Royalties	Two rates, split by subject matter, both on the gross amount and both conditional on beneficial ownership. Art. 13(2)(i): 10 per cent for royalties relating to payments for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. Art. 13(2)(ii): 20 per cent for 'other royalties' — that is, everything else: copyright, cinematograph films, films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting, patents, trade marks, designs or models, plans, secret formulae or processes, and information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. The headline Indian treaty royalty rate of 10 per cent is not the Spain rate for ordinary royalties.	The royalty definition is at Art. 13(3) and expressly includes the equipment limb, which is what makes the 10 per cent tier available. Art. 13(5) disapplies paras 1 and 2 on a PE or fixed-base connection. Art…	Article 13, paragraph 2
Fees for technical services	20 per cent of the gross amount of the fees for technical services — Art. 13(2)(ii), the same tier as ordinary royalties. There is no separate FTS rate and no first-five-years step-down.	Art. 13(4): '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…	Article 13, paragraph 2(ii) and 4

Status

In force	12 January 1995 — the Convention and its Protocol were both signed at New Delhi on 8 February 1993 and entered into force on the exchange of Instruments of Ratification under Art. 30(2). MLI entered into force 1 October 2019 for India and 1 January 2022 for Spain; India deposited its instrument of ratification 25 June 2019 and Spain 28 September 2021.
Given effect by	G.S.R. 356(E), dated 21-4-1995 — issued under s.90 of the Income-tax Act 1961. Note the Convention covers taxes on income and on capital (Art. 2(1)); the Indian taxes listed in Art. 2(3)(b) are income-tax including surcharge, the surtax and the wealth-tax, but the notification recital as printed invokes s.90 only.
Modified by the MLI	Yes — a synthesised text exists. Prepared jointly by the Competent Authorities of India and Spain. No separate publication date is printed. Based on India's MLI position of 25 June 2019 and Spain's of 28 September 2021.
Principal purpose test	Yes — MLI Art. 7(1), in the synthesised text, placed after article 29 (Diplomatic and Consular Officers). Its operative words are that it 'applies and supersedes the provisions of this Convention'. Important: unlike Luxembourg (where the PPT box expressly replaces paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 29) or Korea (where it expressly replaces paragraph 2 of Article 28), the Spain box identifies no paragraph that IT replaces. Article 28B therefore survives in full alongside the PPT — all four of its paragraphs, including the beneficial-ownership rule in para 2 and the wider bilateral main-purpose test in para 4, which reaches the creation, existence, incorporation, registration or presence of the resident and is not confined to arrangements or transactions. A taxpayer clearing the PPT can still fail Art. 28B(4), and vice versa.

Dividends

Rate	15 per cent of the gross amount — a single flat ceiling. The only condition is that the recipient be the beneficial owner of the dividends. Art. 11(2), first sentence.
The holding that unlocks it	None. There is no shareholding threshold anywhere in Article 11 and no lower tier. Practitioners used to the two-tier European pattern should note that India-Spain has never had one.
Where this comes from	Article 11, paragraph 2

Dividends are at article 11, not Article 10 — the Spain Convention runs Art. 10 Associated Enterprises, Art. 11 Dividends, Art. 12 Interest, Art. 13 Royalties and FTS, Art. 14 Capital Gains. Art. 11(2) closes with the standard reservation that the paragraph 'shall not affect the taxation of the company in respect of the profits out of which the dividends are paid'. Art. 11(4) disapplies paras 1 and 2 on a PE or fixed-base connection. Art. 11(5) bars extra-territorial taxation of dividends and of undistributed profits. Carve-out in the protocol: Protocol paragraph 6 disapplies Art. 11(2) in the case of Spain to income attributable, whether distributed or not, to shareholders of the corporations and entities referred to in Art. 12.2 of Law 44/1978 of 8 September 1978 and Art. 19 of Law 61/1978 of 27 December 1978, so long as that income is not subject to Spanish Corporation Tax — such income may be taxed in Spain under its internal law. A rate quoted without this Protocol carve-out is incomplete.

Interest

Rate	15 per cent of the gross amount, conditional on the recipient being the beneficial owner. Art. 12(2). This is one of the higher interest ceilings in the Indian network and it has never been reduced — no MFN notification has operated on it.
Exemptions	The exemptions are in the article itself, at Art. 12(3), not in the Protocol and not in a separate government-income article. Art. 12(3)(a)(i): interest arising in a Contracting State is exempt in that State provided it is derived and beneficially owned by the Government, a political sub-division or a local authority of the other Contracting State. Both limbs — derived and beneficially owned — must be satisfied. Art. 12(3)(a)(ii): the same exemption for the central bank of the other Contracting State. No institution is named; there is no schedule of approved institutions and no 'as may be agreed between the competent authorities' extension mechanism of the kind the Netherlands treaty carries. Art. 12(3)(b): an approval-based exemption. Interest arising in a Contracting State is exempt in that State to the extent approved by the government of that state if it is derived and beneficially owned by any person other than one within (a) who is a resident of the other State, provided that the transaction giving rise to the debt-claim has been approved in this regard by the Government of the first-mentioned (source) State. Two separate approvals are in issue — approval of the extent of exemption and approval of the transaction — and both are the source State's. This is not self-executing. Art. 12(5) disapplies paragraphs 1 and 2 on a PE or fixed-base connection. It does not disapply paragraph 3, so the governmental and approved-transaction exemptions survive a PE connection — the opposite of the Netherlands position, where Art. 11(7) knocks out the government exemption too.
Where this comes from	Article 12, paragraph 2 and 3

Art. 12(4) defines interest in the ordinary wide form — 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 income from Government securities and from bonds or debentures with premiums and prizes; penalty charges for late payment are excluded. Art. 12(6) is the ordinary source rule with the PE/fixed-base deemed-source override. Art. 12(7) is the special-relationship excess rule. Protocol paragraph 5 pushes interest on funds connected with the operation of aircraft or ships in international traffic out of Article 12 altogether and into Articles 8 and 9.

Royalties

Rate	Two rates, split by subject matter, both on the gross amount and both conditional on beneficial ownership. Art. 13(2)(i): 10 per cent for royalties relating to payments for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. Art. 13(2)(ii): 20 per cent for 'other royalties' — that is, everything else: copyright, cinematograph films, films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting, patents, trade marks, designs or models, plans, secret formulae or processes, and information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. The headline Indian treaty royalty rate of 10 per cent is not the Spain rate for ordinary royalties.
Where this comes from	Article 13, paragraph 2

Rate

Two rates, split by subject matter, both on the gross amount and both conditional on beneficial ownership. Art. 13(2)(i): 10 per cent for royalties relating to payments for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. Art. 13(2)(ii): 20 per cent for 'other royalties' — that is, everything else: copyright, cinematograph films, films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting, patents, trade marks, designs or models, plans, secret formulae or processes, and information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. The headline Indian treaty royalty rate of 10 per cent is not the Spain rate for ordinary royalties.

Where this comes from

Article 13, paragraph 2

The royalty definition is at Art. 13(3) and expressly includes the equipment limb, which is what makes the 10 per cent tier available. Art. 13(5) disapplies paras 1 and 2 on a PE or fixed-base connection. Art. 13(6) is the source rule; note the printed text reads 'when the payer in that State itself' — the word 'is' is missing in the printed text of the Annexure. Art. 13(7) is the special-relationship rule. Protocol paragraph 9 denies an Indian payer a deduction for interest, royalties and FTS paid to a Spanish resident unless tax has been paid or deducted at source, notwithstanding the non-discrimination article.

Fees for technical services

Rate	20 per cent of the gross amount of the fees for technical services — Art. 13(2)(ii), the same tier as ordinary royalties. There is no separate FTS rate and no first-five-years step-down.
Make-available requirement	No
Where this comes from	Article 13, paragraph 2(ii) and 4

Art. 13(4): '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 15, in consideration for the services of A technical or consultancy nature, including the provision of services of technical or other personnel. There is no make-available requirement, no requirement that the services be ancillary and subsidiary to a royalty, and no exclusion list of the US/UK kind. The inclusion of 'the provision of services of technical or other personnel' means deputation and secondment charges are caught on the face of the article. Note also that the FTS limb is confined to payments of a technical or consultancy nature — 'managerial' services, which s.9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act catches, are not in the Spain definition.

Capital gains on shares

Treatment	Two source-taxing limbs and a residence-only residue. (a) Art. 14(4) as replaced by MLI Art. 9(4): gains from the alienation of shares or comparable interests, such as interests in A partnership or trust, may be taxed in the other State if at any time during the 365 days preceding the alienation those shares or interests derived more than 50 per cent of their value directly or indirectly from immovable property situated in that other State. The pre-MLI text was narrower — 'principally of immovable property', tested at the moment of alienation, and confined to shares of the capital stock of a company. (b) Art. 14(5), untouched by the MLI: gains from the alienation of shares of the capital stock of a company forming part of A participation of at least 10 per cent in a company which is a resident of a Contracting State may be taxed in that Contracting State. This is the limb that matters in practice: a Spanish resident's gain on Indian shares is taxable in India whenever the holding alienated forms part of a participation of 10 per cent or more, whatever the company's assets consist of. (c) Art. 14(6): gains from the alienation of any other property are taxable only in the State of residence — so a participation below 10 per cent in a company that is not immovable-property-rich escapes Indian tax under the treaty.
Grandfathering	None. There is no grandfathering date, no 1 April 2017 cut-off and no transitional rate of the Mauritius or Singapore kind. The 10 per cent participation limb has been in the Convention since 1993 and applies to shares acquired at any time.
Conditions	The 10 per cent test in Art. 14(5) is expressed as the alienated shares 'forming part of a participation of at least 10 per cent' — it is the size of the participation of which the shares form part that is tested, not the size of the parcel sold. There is no holding-period condition, no beneficial-ownership condition and no limitation-of-benefits condition attached to Article 14 itself. Note separately Art. 24(5), which mirrors this for the capital tax: capital represented by shares representing a participation of at least 10 per cent may be taxed in the State of which the company is resident.
Where this comes from	Article 14, paragraph 4 (as replaced by MLI Art. 9(4)), 5 and 6

Permanent establishment

Construction or installation PE	More than six months in any twelve-month period — Art. 5(2)(k), 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 qualifier that is routinely truncated: the same sub-paragraph creates a second, alternative PE where the project or supervisory activity, being incidental to the sale of machinery or equipment, continues for a period not exceeding six months and the charges payable for the project or supervisory activity exceed 10 per cent of the sale price of the machinery and equipment. A short incidental supervision contract can therefore create a PE where a six-month test alone would not. Separately, Art. 5(2)(j) gives a three-month threshold for an installation or structure used for the exploration or exploitation of natural resources.
Service PE	There is no general service PE limb — no 'furnishing of services through employees for more than N days' article. What exists instead is the proviso to Art. 5(2), a mineral-oils deeming rule: an enterprise is deemed to have a PE and to carry on business through it if it provides services or facilities in connection with, or supplies plant and machinery on hire used or to be used in, the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils in a State, if the activities continue for a period of more than thirty days in any twelve-month period. That is a 30-day threshold, but only for the oil and gas sector; ordinary technical services create no PE however long they last.
Agency PE	Yes, and it is now the MLI form. Art. 5(4) has two sub-paragraphs: (a) the authority-to-conclude-contracts limb, modified by MLI Art. 12(1) into the commissionnaire rule; and (b) an untouched stock-and-delivery limb — no such authority, but habitually maintains a stock of goods or merchandise from which he regularly delivers on behalf of the enterprise. Art. 5(5), the independent-agent saving, was already unusually tight in its original form (an agent devoted wholly or almost wholly to the enterprise or to enterprises under common control is not independent) and is now 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 ordinary no-PE-by-control rule.
Where this comes from	Article 5

Art. 5(2) is a long inclusive list carrying several India-specific items that are not in the OECD model: (g) a warehouse in relation to a person providing storage facilities for others — which Protocol paragraph 2 explains means a warehouse where space is rented to other persons; (h) a farm, plantation or other place of agriculture, forestry or plantation activity; and (i) premises used as A sales outlet. Art. 5(3), the specific-activity exemption list, is modified by MLI Art. 13(2) so that every exemption is now subject to a preparatory-or-auxiliary character requirement, and MLI Art. 13(4) adds anti-fragmentation. There is no insurance PE limb.

Anti-abuse: limitation of benefits, and the MLI

LOB	Article 28B, limitation of benefit — inserted by Notification S.O. 3079(E) dated 27-8-2019, in four paragraphs. Para 1: the Contracting States declare that their domestic anti-abuse rules and procedures, including those relating to abuse of tax treaties, may be applied. Para 2: benefits are not to be granted to a person which is not the beneficial owner of the items of income derived from the other State — a treaty-level beneficial-ownership condition applying to all income, not merely to Articles 11 to 13. Para 3: the Convention does not prevent a Contracting State applying domestic controlled foreign corporation rules. Para 4: a bilateral main-purpose test — benefits are not available to a resident, or in respect of any transaction undertaken by a resident, if the main purpose or one of the main purposes of the creation, existence, incorporation, registration or presence of that resident, or of the transaction, was to obtain benefits under the Convention that would not otherwise be available. Protocol paragraph 13, inserted by the same notification, glosses 'transaction' in para 4 as including the creation, assignment or alienation of any shares, debt-claims, assets or other rights where the main purpose or one of the main purposes was to take advantage of the Convention.
PPT	Yes — MLI Art. 7(1), in the synthesised text, placed after article 29 (Diplomatic and Consular Officers). Its operative words are that it 'applies and supersedes the provisions of this Convention'. Important: unlike Luxembourg (where the PPT box expressly replaces paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 29) or Korea (where it expressly replaces paragraph 2 of Article 28), the Spain box identifies no paragraph that IT replaces. Article 28B therefore survives in full alongside the PPT — all four of its paragraphs, including the beneficial-ownership rule in para 2 and the wider bilateral main-purpose test in para 4, which reaches the creation, existence, incorporation, registration or presence of the resident and is not confined to arrangements or transactions. A taxpayer clearing the PPT can still fail Art. 28B(4), and vice versa.
Subject to tax	None. There is no subject-to-tax condition anywhere in the Convention or the Protocol.
Where this comes from	Article 28B; plus MLI Art. 7(1) and MLI Art. 10(1)-(3) in the synthesised text

Ten MLI boxes. (1) Art. 6(1): the anti-treaty-shopping preamble is included in the preamble of the Convention. (2) Art. 13(2) applies with respect to Art. 5(3): the specific-activity exemptions are re-cast so that each is available only where the activity 'is of a preparatory or auxiliary character' — India took the option A form, so the storage/display/stock/purchasing/information-collection exemptions are no longer automatic. (3) Art. 13(4) anti-fragmentation added on top of Art. 5(3) as so modified. (4) Art. 12(1) applies with respect to Art. 5(4)(a): the commissionnaire rule — habitually concluding contracts, or habitually playing the principal role leading to the conclusion of contracts routinely concluded without material modification, in the name of the enterprise, for the transfer of ownership or right to use property, or for the provision of services. (5) Art. 12(2) applies with respect to Art. 5(5): the independent-agent test is replaced; a person acting exclusively or almost exclusively for one or more closely related enterprises is not independent. (6) Art. 15(1): the 'closely related' definition (control, or more than 50 per cent of the beneficial interest, or in the case of a company more than 50 per cent of the aggregate vote and value of the shares). (7) Art. 9(4) replaces the immovable-property-company share-gains paragraph: the value test is now more than 50 per cent derived directly or indirectly from immovable property at any time during the 365 days preceding the alienation, and it extends beyond shares to 'comparable interests, such as interests in a partnership or trust'. (8), (9) and (10) sit after Article 29: MLI Art. 10(1) to (3) apply and supersede the Convention — the anti-abuse rule for permanent establishments situated in third jurisdictions, denying benefits where the third-jurisdiction tax is less than 60 per cent of what the residence State would have charged, with an active-business carve-out and a competent-authority discretion; and MLI Art. 7(1) — the principal purposes test — which 'applies and supersedes the provisions of this Convention'. Art. 4(3) (place of effective management) is not touched: the MLI Art. 4 dual-resident replacement does not appear. MLI effect dates: in India, withholding taxes where the triggering event occurs on or after the first day of the taxable period beginning on or after 1 July 2022, and other taxes for taxable periods beginning on or after the expiration of six calendar months from 1 July 2022; in Spain, withholding taxes where the event occurs on or after 1 January 2023 and other taxes for taxable periods beginning on or after 1 January 2023.

The protocols, in order

A treaty read without its protocols is a wrong answer.

Notification No. S.O. 3079(E) [No. 58/2019/F. No. 503/02/1986-ftd-I], dated 27-8-2019 — the single amending instrument. Verified directly from the amendment apparatus on the article 2 record (footnote 1: 'Substituted by Notification S.O. 3079(E) [No. 58/2019/F. No. 503/02/1986-ftd-I], Dated 27-8-2019') and on the protocol record (footnote 3: 'Inserted by Notification S.O. 3079(E) ... Dated 27-8-2019'). It carries the amending Protocol into force and works six changes: (i) Art. 2(3)(a) substituted — the Spanish taxes are now the income tax on individuals, the corporation tax, the income tax on non-residents and the capital tax; (ii) Art. 10(2) inserted — the corresponding-adjustment paragraph in Associated Enterprises, which the 1993 Convention did not have; (iii) Art. 28 substituted — a foreseeably-relevant exchange-of-information article not restricted by Articles 1 and 2; (iv) Art. 28A inserted — Assistance in the Collection of Taxes; (v) Art. 28B inserted — limitation of benefit, in four paragraphs; (vi) Protocol paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 inserted, glossing Articles 28, 28A and 28B respectively.
No notification has been issued under the most-favoured-nation clause in Protocol paragraph 7. Nothing equivalent to the Netherlands' S.O. 693(E) dated 30-8-1999 appears for Spain. The whole text was scanned for amendment markers and only the six changes traced to S.O. 3079(E) were found; Articles 11, 12 and 13 (dividends, interest, royalties and FTS) carry no amendment marker at all and stand exactly as signed in 1993.
The MLI modifies the Convention; see synthesised_text. No further bilateral protocol appears in the sources used here.

The words themselves

Quoted from the treaty as notified.

However, if under any Convention or Agreement between India and a third State which is a Member of the OECD, which enters into force after 1-1-1990, India limits its taxation at source on royalties or fees for technical services to a rate lower or a scope more restricted than the rate or scope provided for in this Convention on the said items of incomes, the same rate or scope as provided for in that Convention or Agreement on the said items of income shall also apply under this Convention with effect from the date on which the present Convention comes into force or the relevant Indian Convention or Agreement, whichever enters into force later.

Article Protocol, paragraph 7, second sentence of the treaty as notified.

in the case of fees for technical services and other royalties, 20 per cent of the gross amount of fees for technical services or royalties.

Article 13, paragraph 2(ii) of the treaty as notified.

Gains for the alienation of shares of the capital stock of a company forming part of a participation of at least 10 per cent in a company which is a resident of a Contracting State may be taxed in that Contracting State.

Article 14, paragraph 5 of the treaty as notified.

Benefits under this Convention shall not be available to a resident of a Contracting State, or with respect to any transaction undertaken by such a resident, if the main purpose or one of the main purposes of the creation, existence, incorporation, registration or presence of such a resident or of the transaction undertaken by him, was to obtain benefits under this Convention that would not otherwise be available.

Article 28B, paragraph 4 of the treaty as notified.

Provided that, for the purpose 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 provides services or facilities in connection with or supplies plant and machinery on hire used or to be used in, the prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils in the State if the activities continue for a period of more than thirty days in any twelve-month period.

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

What to watch

The article numbers are offset by one from the OECD pattern for the whole distributive part of this treaty. Dividends is Article 11, Interest is Article 12, Royalties and FTS is Article 13, Capital Gains is Article 14, Independent Personal Services is Article 15. Article 10 is Associated Enterprises. A cross-reference to 'Article 12' in an Indian assessment order dealing with royalties is, on the Spain treaty, a reference to the interest article.
The synthesised text carries A numbering slip. The MLI Art. 9(4) box is introduced as replacing 'paragraph 4 of Article 13 of this Convention', but the capital gains article in the India-Spain Convention is article 14, and the box is physically placed inside Article 14 immediately after the bracketed and struck-through paragraph 4. The replacement plainly operates on Art. 14(4). The reference to Article 13 is an artefact of the MLI drafting convention and should not be read as touching the royalties article.
The 20 per cent FTS and ordinary-royalty rate is the headline finding. India-Spain is one of the few remaining Indian treaties whose treaty ceiling on ordinary royalties and on FTS is higher than the domestic s.115A rate has been for years. Where the treaty rate exceeds the domestic rate the treaty does not operate to increase liability, so in practice the domestic rate governs — but a page that reports '10 per cent' for Spain royalties, as most compilations do, is reporting the MFN-adjusted figure, not the notified treaty figure.
The 10 per cent equipment-royalty tier is easy to miss. Art. 13(2)(i) gives 10 per cent, not 20, for payments for the use of or right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment. Equipment hire charges are therefore on a different tier from every other royalty under this treaty.
The interest exemption survives A permanent establishment. Art. 12(5) knocks out only paragraphs 1 and 2 where the debt-claim is effectively connected with a PE or fixed base. Paragraph 3 — the government, central bank and approved-transaction exemptions — is not among the paragraphs disapplied. This is materially more generous than the Netherlands treaty, where Art. 11(7) disapplies paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.
The 10 per cent participation limb on shares has no asset test and no grandfathering. Art. 14(5) is not an immovable-property rule; it taxes any gain on shares forming part of a participation of at least 10 per cent in a resident company, at source, whatever the company does. Only sub-10-per-cent participations in companies that are not immovable-property-rich fall into the residence-only residue in Art. 14(6).
The PPT does not displace article 28B. The MLI Art. 7(1) box for Spain 'applies and supersedes the provisions of this Convention' without naming a paragraph it replaces. Article 28B, inserted in 2019 — after the MLI was signed but before it took effect for Spain — therefore continues to operate in full. Two anti-abuse tests apply cumulatively, and Art. 28B(4) is the wider of the two because it bites on the creation, existence, incorporation, registration or presence of the resident itself, not merely on an arrangement or transaction.
There is no general service PE. The only day-count PE in this treaty is the 30-day mineral-oils proviso to Art. 5(2). A Spanish enterprise rendering technical services in India for a year, without a fixed place, creates no PE — the charge, if any, falls under the 20 per cent FTS article instead.
Protocol paragraph 6 is A real carve-out from the dividend ceiling and applies only in Spain, to attributed income of the entities under the two 1978 Spanish Laws so long as that income is not subject to Spanish Corporation Tax.
The convention is A capital-tax treaty as well. Article 24 taxes capital, and Art. 24(5) mirrors the 10 per cent participation rule for shares. Art. 2(3)(b) lists the Indian wealth-tax among the covered taxes. Although the Indian wealth-tax has been abolished, the Article 24 architecture is still on the face of the notified instrument and matters for the Spanish side.
Elimination of double taxation carries A sunset. Art. 25(4) is a tax-sparing rule and Art. 25(5) confines it to 'the first 10 years for which this Convention is effective', with the competent authorities free to consult on extension. Spain also gives an underlying credit under Art. 25(3)(b) for a holding of at least 25 per cent of the capital of the Indian paying company.

What this page does not tell you. Whether India has at any time issued a notification under Protocol paragraph 7 that is not carried in the sources used here. Nothing in the treaty material records one, and Articles 11, 12 and 13 bear no amendment marker; but only bilateral instruments have been read here, and a unilateral MFN notification of the Netherlands kind would be visible only if it had been folded into the protocol text. The date of signature and the date of entry into force of the amending Protocol that S.O. 3079(E) dated 27-8-2019 gives effect to. No separate text of that Protocol is available here — its changes appear only as footnoted substitutions and insertions in the article text — so the instrument's own signature place and date, and its entry-into-force article, were not established. The effective dates from which each of the six changes made by S.O. 3079(E) operates. The footnotes give the notification number and date but no w.e.f. Date against any of them. The text of Art. 2(3)(a) as it stood before the 2019 substitution was only partially visible in the footnote ('The Income-tax on Individuals (el I...'), which truncates. Whether Spain has made any MLI reservation that would affect a provision not appearing as a box in the synthesised text — the MLI position statements themselves were not read, only the synthesised text prepared from them. Article 25 (Elimination of Double Taxation) paragraph 4, the tax-sparing rule, was read only in part; sub-clause (i) of para 4 was not captured.

The India–Spain tax treaty