This paper critically analyses the much discussed judgements of the Supreme Court of India in the Azadi Bachao Andolan and Vodafone cases. These decisions have generated much discussion, at least in part, because they were instances where a developing country court has had an opportunity to possibly challenge the pre-eminence given to investments (existing division) in international tax law. However, the court ended up relying heavily on the principle of efficiency (a principle developed to facilitate capital exporting nations) to arrive at its decisions. Although the court did mention development in the former case, and despite the opportunity to develop or even discuss it in the latter case, it was overlooked. Also, in both these cases the court has ruled out its role in creating international tax law or even to attempt a purposive interpretation. This analysis opines that the principle of efficiency does not cohere with development and the decisions of the court reify its belief that investments automatically lead to development. Importantly, it has forgotten that tax revenues are desperately needed by the state, and therefore it is time for a division based on equity (entitlements). It is also argued that such a division based on equity would cohere with the efficiency and therefore be neutral and fair.