DTAA: Charge, Relief and the Order in Which a Claim Is Tested
A double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA) settles which of two states may tax a payment; it does not settle what India charges. The charge comes from the Income-tax Act, 2025, and a treaty takes effect here through notification, so the order of the two decides the rate a payer withholds.
An Indian company paying a royalty to its Singapore parent runs both tests on one transaction. I run the same order before any cross-border payment: the charge, the agreement and its notification, the distributive article, then relief.
The treaty does not impose the tax: section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 gives a notified agreement effect in India, so the notification is read before the treaty article.
The distributive article decides the rate and the withholding duty, so a payment read as business profits under one treaty and as fees for technical services under another gives two answers.
Section 159(8) and Rule 75 put Form No. 41 on the file, and the principal purpose test can deny a benefit the article allows; the Mauritius amendments are in force from 10 August 2026.
What a DTAA is, and how a claim under one is tested
A double taxation avoidance agreement divides taxing rights between two states over the same income, so that one income is not taxed twice. In India, it works through the Income-tax Act, 2025: the Act imposes the charge, and a notified agreement limits what India may take from an item.
The Act charges the income first, without reference to any agreement. The agreement is then tested: in force, notified, and covering this assessee on these facts. The distributive article follows and names the state that may tax and the ceiling it applies. Relief comes last, as a credit abroad or, without an agreement, under section 160.
The charge first: what the Act taxes before any treaty is read
The Income-tax Act, 2025 imposes the charge on income without reference to any agreement. Section 159 gives an agreement with a foreign country effect in India, and India used it for Mauritius: the amended agreement took domestic effect by notification under section 159(1) (ETCFO report).
That is why the notification is the first document I ask for, and any protocol the second; until it is notified, the older wording binds the payer.
The treaty caps a figure that the domestic provisions produce, so the domestic rate is computed first.
The election comes later, once the article is read, and an assessee may take whichever is more beneficial. I have written separately on the section 90(2) Morgan Stanley ruling.
The distributive articles that decide rate and withholding
Business profits cover most trading income. Under that article the source state taxes the enterprise only if it has a permanent establishment there, and only on the profit attributable to it, so a payment to a non-resident needs a permanent establishment finding before it needs a rate; the note on foreign and domestic permanent establishments covers which sites create one.
Dividends, interest, royalties and fees for technical services work differently: each lets the source state tax the item while capping the rate, usually for the beneficial owner. The payer withholds at that cap, so the article and not the domestic rate sets the figure.
Capital gains follow what is sold. An article may leave the gain with the residence state for some disposals and give it to the source state for others, so the asset decides which state takes it.
Treaties diverge most on characterisation: a service treated as fees for technical services under one agreement can fall under business profits under another, and the rate moves with it. Where no separate services article exists, the answer is business profits or other income.
I have written about that divergence separately, in the Denso (Thailand) FTS decision under the India-Thailand treaty.
Relief by credit, and where unilateral relief still does the work
Relief is the last move and depends on the three before it. Where an agreement applies, the residence state credits the tax the source state charged, bounded by the ceiling the article placed on that item.
Where no agreement exists, section 160 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 allows a deduction on the doubly taxed income "at the Indian rate of tax or the rate of tax of the said country, whichever is the lower". The income must have accrued outside India and must not be deemed to accrue in India.
A royalty deemed to accrue in India does not qualify, so the route rarely helps an Indian payer; it matters for income a resident earns abroad.
An assessee may elect the treaty or the domestic provision, item by item where the outcomes differ. I have compared section 160 against section 91 separately.
Certificate, beneficial ownership and the principal purpose test
An article can be satisfied and the claim still fail. Section 159(8) codifies the documentation conditions, and Rule 75 prescribes Form No. 41.
Beneficial ownership is the second gate. The reduced ceilings in the dividend, interest and royalty articles are written for the owner of the income, so a company passing a payment on has to answer for its own status, and the Tiger Global TRC ruling shows a certificate does not settle it.
The principal purpose test is the third gate. Article 7(1) of the MLI denies a benefit where it is "reasonable to conclude, having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances, that obtaining that benefit was one of the principal purposes of any arrangement or transaction". CBDT's guidance on the principal purpose test sets out how India reads that wording.
The Mauritius agreement took domestic effect under section 159(1) and came into force on 10 August 2026 with a principal purpose test in that wording (ETCFO report). The Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held, on the India-Ireland treaty, that the MLI test needed a separate notification though both states had ratified the MLI (KPMG's summary).
One payment tested end to end: a royalty to a Singapore parent
Take a royalty that an Indian subsidiary pays its Singapore parent for software, due next month.
I have set out a fuller reading of how the India-Singapore treaty works in practice in Tyco Electronics on India-Singapore DTAA.
Charge. Find the provision of the Income-tax Act, 2025 that taxes the royalty in the non-resident's hands, and the rate it carries with no agreement in view. Done when the domestic figure is stated with its section.
Applicability. Confirm that the India-Singapore agreement covers this assessee, then find the notification that gave it effect, with any protocol in force. Done when the notification is on the file with its date.
Article. Decide whether the payment is a royalty under the royalty article, fees for technical services under a separate article, or business profits because the parent has no permanent establishment in India. Done when one article is named and the others are ruled out on the facts.
Rate and withholding. Apply the ceiling in that article, subject to beneficial ownership, and withhold on that basis. Done when the computation cites the article's paragraph instead of the domestic rate.
Evidence. Put the tax residency certificate, Form No. 41 and the beneficial ownership file together before the payment date. Done when the payer can produce all of them on the day it withholds.
Relief. The parent claims credit in Singapore for the tax withheld in India. Done when the credit claimed abroad matches what was withheld.
I have left the rate out of step four on purpose: the figure lives in the article and in any protocol to it.
The answer turns at step three and step five: the characterisation of the payment, and the evidence behind the claim.
Questions a treaty claim raises
What is DTAA in taxation?
A DTAA divides the right to tax one item between two countries, so it is not taxed twice. India taxes it under the Act, and a notified agreement then caps what India may take.
How is double taxation avoided between India and the United States?
Relief runs through the residence state, which credits the tax the source state charged; the distributive article caps the source state's rate. Where no agreement applies, section 160 allows a deduction at the lower of the two rates.
Where I would start, and the research basis
Before the next payment, pull three documents: the notification giving the agreement effect, any protocol amending the article you rely on, and the Form No. 41 file.
The principal purpose test is the provision to watch, now that the Mauritius agreement carries it from 10 August 2026.
This note rests on sections 159(1), 159(8) and 160 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, Rule 75, Article 7(1) of the MLI, the notification of the amended India-Mauritius agreement, and the Delhi bench ruling on the India-Ireland treaty. Research cut-off: 21 October 2026.
If a cross-border payment is on your desk this quarter, contact us and I will run the same four steps against the treaty in front of you.
A double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA) settles which of two states may tax a payment; it does not settle what India charges. The charge comes from the Income-tax Act, 2025, and a treaty takes effect here through notification, so the order of the two decides the rate a payer withholds.
An Indian company paying a royalty to its Singapore parent runs both tests on one transaction. I run the same order before any cross-border payment: the charge, the agreement and its notification, the distributive article, then relief.
The treaty does not impose the tax: section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 gives a notified agreement effect in India, so the notification is read before the treaty article.
The distributive article decides the rate and the withholding duty, so a payment read as business profits under one treaty and as fees for technical services under another gives two answers.
Section 159(8) and Rule 75 put Form No. 41 on the file, and the principal purpose test can deny a benefit the article allows; the Mauritius amendments are in force from 10 August 2026.
What a DTAA is, and how a claim under one is tested
A double taxation avoidance agreement divides taxing rights between two states over the same income, so that one income is not taxed twice. In India, it works through the Income-tax Act, 2025: the Act imposes the charge, and a notified agreement limits what India may take from an item.
The Act charges the income first, without reference to any agreement. The agreement is then tested: in force, notified, and covering this assessee on these facts. The distributive article follows and names the state that may tax and the ceiling it applies. Relief comes last, as a credit abroad or, without an agreement, under section 160.
The charge first: what the Act taxes before any treaty is read
The Income-tax Act, 2025 imposes the charge on income without reference to any agreement. Section 159 gives an agreement with a foreign country effect in India, and India used it for Mauritius: the amended agreement took domestic effect by notification under section 159(1) (ETCFO report).
That is why the notification is the first document I ask for, and any protocol the second; until it is notified, the older wording binds the payer.
The treaty caps a figure that the domestic provisions produce, so the domestic rate is computed first.
The election comes later, once the article is read, and an assessee may take whichever is more beneficial. I have written separately on the section 90(2) Morgan Stanley ruling.
The distributive articles that decide rate and withholding
Business profits cover most trading income. Under that article the source state taxes the enterprise only if it has a permanent establishment there, and only on the profit attributable to it, so a payment to a non-resident needs a permanent establishment finding before it needs a rate; the note on foreign and domestic permanent establishments covers which sites create one.
Dividends, interest, royalties and fees for technical services work differently: each lets the source state tax the item while capping the rate, usually for the beneficial owner. The payer withholds at that cap, so the article and not the domestic rate sets the figure.
Capital gains follow what is sold. An article may leave the gain with the residence state for some disposals and give it to the source state for others, so the asset decides which state takes it.
Treaties diverge most on characterisation: a service treated as fees for technical services under one agreement can fall under business profits under another, and the rate moves with it. Where no separate services article exists, the answer is business profits or other income.
I have written about that divergence separately, in the Denso (Thailand) FTS decision under the India-Thailand treaty.
Relief by credit, and where unilateral relief still does the work
Relief is the last move and depends on the three before it. Where an agreement applies, the residence state credits the tax the source state charged, bounded by the ceiling the article placed on that item.
Where no agreement exists, section 160 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 allows a deduction on the doubly taxed income "at the Indian rate of tax or the rate of tax of the said country, whichever is the lower". The income must have accrued outside India and must not be deemed to accrue in India.
A royalty deemed to accrue in India does not qualify, so the route rarely helps an Indian payer; it matters for income a resident earns abroad.
An assessee may elect the treaty or the domestic provision, item by item where the outcomes differ. I have compared section 160 against section 91 separately.
Certificate, beneficial ownership and the principal purpose test
An article can be satisfied and the claim still fail. Section 159(8) codifies the documentation conditions, and Rule 75 prescribes Form No. 41.
Beneficial ownership is the second gate. The reduced ceilings in the dividend, interest and royalty articles are written for the owner of the income, so a company passing a payment on has to answer for its own status, and the Tiger Global TRC ruling shows a certificate does not settle it.
The principal purpose test is the third gate. Article 7(1) of the MLI denies a benefit where it is "reasonable to conclude, having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances, that obtaining that benefit was one of the principal purposes of any arrangement or transaction". CBDT's guidance on the principal purpose test sets out how India reads that wording.
The Mauritius agreement took domestic effect under section 159(1) and came into force on 10 August 2026 with a principal purpose test in that wording (ETCFO report). The Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held, on the India-Ireland treaty, that the MLI test needed a separate notification though both states had ratified the MLI (KPMG's summary).
One payment tested end to end: a royalty to a Singapore parent
Take a royalty that an Indian subsidiary pays its Singapore parent for software, due next month.
I have set out a fuller reading of how the India-Singapore treaty works in practice in Tyco Electronics on India-Singapore DTAA.
Charge. Find the provision of the Income-tax Act, 2025 that taxes the royalty in the non-resident's hands, and the rate it carries with no agreement in view. Done when the domestic figure is stated with its section.
Applicability. Confirm that the India-Singapore agreement covers this assessee, then find the notification that gave it effect, with any protocol in force. Done when the notification is on the file with its date.
Article. Decide whether the payment is a royalty under the royalty article, fees for technical services under a separate article, or business profits because the parent has no permanent establishment in India. Done when one article is named and the others are ruled out on the facts.
Rate and withholding. Apply the ceiling in that article, subject to beneficial ownership, and withhold on that basis. Done when the computation cites the article's paragraph instead of the domestic rate.
Evidence. Put the tax residency certificate, Form No. 41 and the beneficial ownership file together before the payment date. Done when the payer can produce all of them on the day it withholds.
Relief. The parent claims credit in Singapore for the tax withheld in India. Done when the credit claimed abroad matches what was withheld.
I have left the rate out of step four on purpose: the figure lives in the article and in any protocol to it.
The answer turns at step three and step five: the characterisation of the payment, and the evidence behind the claim.
Questions a treaty claim raises
What is DTAA in taxation?
A DTAA divides the right to tax one item between two countries, so it is not taxed twice. India taxes it under the Act, and a notified agreement then caps what India may take.
How is double taxation avoided between India and the United States?
Relief runs through the residence state, which credits the tax the source state charged; the distributive article caps the source state's rate. Where no agreement applies, section 160 allows a deduction at the lower of the two rates.
Where I would start, and the research basis
Before the next payment, pull three documents: the notification giving the agreement effect, any protocol amending the article you rely on, and the Form No. 41 file.
The principal purpose test is the provision to watch, now that the Mauritius agreement carries it from 10 August 2026.
This note rests on sections 159(1), 159(8) and 160 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, Rule 75, Article 7(1) of the MLI, the notification of the amended India-Mauritius agreement, and the Delhi bench ruling on the India-Ireland treaty. Research cut-off: 21 October 2026.
If a cross-border payment is on your desk this quarter, contact us and I will run the same four steps against the treaty in front of you.
Financial Insights
Expert tips and emerging industry trends
Get started today
Let’s talk
If you are evaluating cross-border expansion, restructuring, or strengthening compliance and audit readiness, we can help you plan and execute with clarity.
Get started today
Let’s talk
If you are evaluating cross-border expansion, restructuring, or strengthening compliance and audit readiness, we can help you plan and execute with clarity.
Get started today
Let’s talk
If you are evaluating cross-border expansion, restructuring, or strengthening compliance and audit readiness, we can help you plan and execute with clarity.