International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 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

Significant economic presence in Indian tax law: How significant will it be?

Sponsored by

Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan logo.PNG
India has gone ahead with the new SEP-based nexus rule in its domestic tax law

S Vasudevan and Karanjot Singh Khurana of Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan consider the impact of significant economic presence in the Indian tax regime.

India has always been at the forefront of the campaign demanding new-age digital companies to pay their fair share of taxes to market jurisdictions. 

After the OECD’s BEPS Action Plan 1, India was one of the first countries to introduce the equalisation levy, which now applies to almost all online cross-border sale of goods and services. 

In addition, India has also introduced a new nexus rule ‘significant economic presence’ (SEP) in its domestic tax legislation. Statutory text relating to SEP was inserted in the Indian income tax law in 2018. The provisions are effective from April 1 2021. 

The Indian government has expressly said that SEP draws its inspiration from the recommendations contained in BEPS Action Plan 1. Thanks to technology, non-residents can now interact with the customers in India remotely. 

The existing nexus rules requiring physical presence in the source country has become outdated. While international consensus on this issue is still elusive, India has gone ahead with the new SEP-based nexus rule in its domestic tax law.

Concept of SEP: New nexus rule

Previously, under the Indian tax laws, any income accruing or arising from a business connection in India was taxable in India. Such business connection normally required carrying on of operations by the non-residents in India through physical presence of a fixed establishment, employees, agents, etc. 

Going forwards, even a SEP in India of a non-resident is deemed to constitute a business connection in India and hence, income generated by a non-resident from such SEP will be taxable in India.

  • A non-resident will be said to have a SEP in India in the following circumstances:  The non-resident carries out transactions in any goods or services or property with any Indian resident, if the aggregate payments exceeds 20 million rupees (approximately $270,000) in a year; or

  • The non-resident engages in systematic and continuous soliciting of business or in interaction with a minimum of 300,000 users in India.

SEP will be constituted irrespective of whether the agreements are entered, or services are rendered, in India or outside. The SEP-based nexus rule is not only limited to digital transactions but applies equally to cross-border transactions executed offline.

Impact of SEP on non-treaty countries

If a non-resident is located in a jurisdiction without a tax treaty with India, the SEP rule in the Indian domestic tax law will apply in full effect. For instance, in certain cases digital businesses are set-up in tax havens not having a tax treaty with India. Such businesses may be exposed to a significant tax burden in India, which may be recovered by way of tax withholding.

Possible impact on treaty countries

The SEP provisions in the Indian domestic tax law do not appear to have any impact on the non-residents operating from countries having tax treaties with India, as requirement of a permanent establishment in the source country like India continues to exist in treaties.

Having said this, SEP could still impact non-residents in treaty countries in the following way:

Additional compliance burden

Payments made to non-residents may be subject to withholding tax, unless documentation to support treaty benefit like the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC), no-PE declaration, etc. are provided. In addition, non-residents may even be required to obtain PAN and file tax returns in India, as exemption from such compliances have been currently provided to non-residents only having certain types of income like royalty and fees for technical services.

Denial of treaty benefit

It also exposes non-residents to possible denial of treaty benefits by the Indian tax authorities by application of the principle purpose test (PPT) or general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) or other technicalities.

Profits attributable to SEP: Unsettling the law laid down by the Supreme Court?

Interestingly, while the OECD is still debating on the issue of profit attribution, the Indian tax law provides that the entire profit attributable to such SEP will be taxable in India. 

In addition, the provisions also seek to tax certain indirect profits generated by virtue of SEP. For instance, any income from advertisements targeting the Indian users or income from the sale of data collected from Indian users may also be subject to tax in India.

Importantly, this expanded profit attribution rule is likely to have impact even on non-residents located in treaty countries and having a PE in India (either conventionally or on account of expanded definition in MLI). 

Over and above the arm’s-length profits attributable to such PE, the Indian tax authorities may insist that even the indirect profits attributable to SEP in India is also taxable in India. 

Thus, the provisions may have the impact of unsettling the existing judicially accepted position (see DIT (Int.) v Morgan Stanley & Co. [2007] 292 ITR 416 (SC) and Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v DDIT [2008] 307 ITR 205 (Bombay)) that if activities performed by PE are remunerated on arm’s-length basis (by making payments to associated enterprise), no further profits should be attributed to PE. 

Going forward

The SEP related amendment marks a significant leap in how India seeks to tax profits of non-residents doing business with India. Even taxpayers located in jurisdictions with which India has tax treaties may be exposed to a significant tax and compliance burden going forward due to these amendments. 

Undoubtedly, proper impact analysis of the new SEP provisions is required on cross-border businesses carried on with India, whether through digital or conventional means.

S Vasudevan

Executive partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan



Karanjot Singh Khurana

Principal associate, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Richard Murphy and Andrew Baker make the case for tax transparency as a public good and how key principles should lead to a better tax system.
‘Go on leave, effective immediately’, PwC has told nine partners in the latest development in the firm’s ongoing tax scandal.
The forum heard that VAT professionals are struggling under new pressures to validate transactions and catch fraud, responsibilities that they say should lie with governments.
The working paper suggested a new framework for boosting effective carbon rates and reducing the inconsistency of climate policy.
UAE firm Virtuzone launches ‘TaxGPT’, claiming it is the first AI-powered tax tool, while the Australian police faces claims of a conflict of interest over its PwC audit contract.
The US technology company is defending its past Irish tax arrangements at the CJEU in a final showdown that could have major political repercussions.
ITR’s Indirect Tax Forum heard that Italy’s VAT investigation into Meta has the potential to set new and expensive tax principles that would likely be adopted around the world
Police are now investigating the leak of confidential tax information by a former PwC partner at the request of the Australian government.
A VAT policy officer at the European Commission told the forum that the initial deadline set for EU convergence of domestic digital VAT reporting is likely to be extended.
The UK government shows little sign of cutting corporate tax, while a growing number of businesses report a decline in investment as a result of the higher tax burden.