India: Ruling on royalty secondary source rule under Indian tax laws
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

India: Ruling on royalty secondary source rule under Indian tax laws

nayak.jpg

jain.jpg

Rajendra Nayak


Aastha Jain

Under the Indian Tax Law (ITL), royalty income payable by a non-resident (NR) is considered as sourced in India, and therefore taxable, if it is utilised for the purpose of a business carried out in India or for earning income from any source in India. This source rule for taxing royalties paid by a non-resident to another non-resident is commonly referred to as the secondary source rule. The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently ruled on taxation of royalty under the secondary source rule in the case of Qualcomm Incorporated (150 TTJ 661). The taxpayer, a US resident corporation, had licensed certain intellectual property (IP) relating to the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) technology to non-resident original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The OEMs in turn, used the licensed IP to manufacture CDMA handsets and wireless equipment outside India and sold it to customers worldwide, including India. The issue was with regard to taxability of royalty income in the hands of the taxpayer received from OEMs to the extent it related to equipments sold to customers in India. The Tribunal observed that under the secondary source rule of the ITL, the onus lies on the tax authority to prove that the royalty payable by the non-resident is for the purpose of business carried on by such non-resident in India or used for making or earning any income from any source in India. For business to be carried out in India there should be some activity in India. In the present case, the licensed IP was used by the OEMs in manufacturing products outside India and sale to India was without any operations being carried out in India which would amount to business with India and not business in India. Hence, the tribunal found that the OEMs did not carry out business in India. Furthermore, the licensed IP was not used by the OEMs for earning income from a source in India. Source is the activity that gives rise to income. The source of income for the OEMs was manufacture of products undertaken outside India and not sale made to the Indian customers. Accordingly, the royalty income of the taxpayer was not taxable in India under the ITL. In view of the above, the tribunal did not consider taxability under the India-US treaty as it would have been an academic exercise.

Rajendra Nayak (rajendra.nayak@in.ey.com) and Aastha Jain (aastha.jain@in.ey.com)
Ernst & Young

Tel: +91 80 4027 5275

Website : www.ey.com/india

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The reported warning follows EY accumulating extra debt to deal with the costs of its failed Project Everest
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Paul Griggs, the firm’s inbound US senior partner, will reverse a move by the incumbent leader; in other news, RSM has announced its new CEO
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Luis Coronado suggests companies should embrace technology to assist with TP data reporting, as the ‘big four’ firm unveils a TP survey of over 1,000 professionals
The proposed matrix will help revenue officers track intra-company transactions from multinationals
The full list of finalists has been revealed and the winners will be presented on June 20 at the Metropolitan Club in New York
The ‘big four’ firm has threatened to legally pursue those behind the letter, which has been circulating on social media
The guidelines have been established in the wake of multiple tax scandals and controversies that have rocked the accounting profession
KPMG Netherlands’ former head of assurance also received a permanent bar and $150,000 fine; in other news, asset management firm BlackRock lost a $13.5bn UK tax appeal
Gift this article