India: Ruling on availability of treaty benefits to a non-beneficial owner recipient
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 2023

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

India: Ruling on availability of treaty benefits to a non-beneficial owner recipient



Rajendra Nayak

Aastha Jain

The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) recently ruled in the case of JC Bamford Investments, England (taxpayer) on whether the benefit of lower tax rate under the India – UK tax treaty is available on royalty paid to a UK resident which is not a beneficial owner (BO) of such royalty income. In the facts of case, the taxpayer was a UK-incorporated and UK-resident company. JC Bamford Excavators (JCBE), also a UK resident and a group company of the taxpayer, had entered into a technology transfer agreement (TTA) with an Indian group company, JC Bamford India (JCBI). Under the TTA, JCBE licensed certain intellectual property (IP) to JCBI along with an exclusive right to manufacture and market excavator loaders in India. The consideration towards exploitation of IP was paid by JCBI to JCBE and was characterised as royalty. By virtue of a subsequent tripartite agreement, JCBE sub-licensed the IP to the taxpayer subject to the right of JCBI to continue to exploit IP. Consequently, royalty was paid by JCBI to the taxpayer and in turn the taxpayer remitted 99.5% of the royalty received to JCBE.

The India-UK treaty provides for a lower rate of tax on royalty income of UK resident, arising in India as compared to the rate under Indian Tax Laws (ITL). The Indian tax authorities denied this benefit, on the premise that the taxpayer was merely a conduit and not the BO of royalty received from JCBI.

The Tribunal examined the meaning of the phrase BO which is not otherwise defined under the ITL or the treaty. It was observed that, in common parlance, a BO is one who is entitled to the income in its own right. It is the person who is free to decide (a) whether or not the capital or other assets should be used or made available for use by others or (b) on how the yields therefrom are used or (c) both of the above. Sometimes, a BO may turn out to be a person different from the immediate recipient or formal owner or recipient of the income.

In the given facts, it was JCBE and not the taxpayer, who was the BO of the royalty income from JCBI. However, the requirement as per the treaty for applicability of lower rate in India is that the BO, not the formal recipient of royalty income, is a resident of the UK. Accordingly, since the BO being JCBE is also a UK tax resident, it was held that the taxpayer can avail the benefit of the lower rate under the treaty, despite the fact the taxpayer is not the BO of the royalty.

The present ruling attempts to clarify the meaning of one of the most significant phrases, 'beneficial owner' and its application in the context of royalty taxation under the India-UK tax treaty.

Rajendra Nayak ( and Aastha Jain (


Tel: +91 80 4027 5275


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Mexico is advised to eliminate its zero-rating for VAT, Hong Kong cuts stamp duty, road tax rates fall across the OECD and G20, and more
Ulf Johannemann, who has been on trial in Frankfurt since September, was the firm’s most senior tax partner until 2019
Important dates for the Women in Business Law Awards for 2024 revealed
More than 1,000 PwC staff in China and Hong Kong engaged in improper answer sharing, it is understood
Yusuf Akhmadi of Indonesia’s Directorate General of Taxation reports on the country’s latest domestic and cross-border initiatives to clamp down on tax evasion
The new rate is a blow to Samsung, while two law firms have made significant tax hires into their respective Washington DC offices
Rema Serafi, KPMG’s first-ever female vice chair for tax, talks about breaking the mould in an exclusive interview with ITR
The metal multinational’s victory, in a case worth $12 million, continues the trend of companies coming out on top against India’s revenue department
Guy Bud and Matthew Greene from litigation firm Stewarts review a dispute on tiered partnerships, which raises questions on corporation tax and partnership law
The stagnating pay and tax bonuses cap follow slashed payouts for the deals team and business consolidation in the last month