India: Ending the year with several important tax rulings

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

India: Ending the year with several important tax rulings

Sponsored by

logo.png
AdobeStock_28744004_jeans

India has seen several important decisions on the tax front take place in 2017.

India has seen several important decisions on the tax front take place in 2017. The Supreme Court of India ruled on several important tax matters, including on the formation of permanent establishments in India, taxation of the oil and gas sector, and the treatment of dividend income as 'exempt' for the purposes of disallowance of related expenditure.

The last few weeks saw another handful of far-reaching judgments coming out. These are summarised below.

Royalties

One recent case involved the taxation of payments made under Google's AdWords program. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bangalore) held that payments by Google's Indian subsidiary (Google India) to Google Ireland Ltd. for distribution of the AdWords programme were in the nature of 'royalty'.

Google India and Google Ireland had entered into a distribution agreement under which Google India was appointed as a non-exclusive distributor of the AdWords program to advertisers in India. Google India accordingly purchased advertising space from Google Ireland for sale to local advertisers.

While holding that the payments made were in the nature of a 'royalty', the tribunal held that:

  • The distribution agreement was not merely an agreement to provide advertising space, but was for facilitating the display and publishing of advertisements to targeted customers;

  • The intellectual property of Google vested in the search engine technology, associated software and other features, and hence use of these tools for accepting advertisements fell within the ambit of 'royalty'; and

  • The marketing and promotion of advertisements by Google India was possible only with the use of a secret formula and confidential customer data. Since these were not in the public domain, Google India was using a secret process, the payment for which would amount to 'royalty'.

This is an important decision in the digital economy context. With the introduction of the equalisation levy in 2016, pursuant to the BEPS Action 1, online advertising payments will no longer be governed by the Income-tax Act or the tax treaties. However, this judgment will still be relevant for pre-2016 disputes.

This decision has been appealed to the jurisdictional High Court (i.e. in the State of Karnataka) and the appeal has been admitted.

Permanent establishments on activities outsourced to India

On a separate case, the Supreme Court delivered an important decision that dealt with the issue of whether a foreign company would have a permanent establishment (PE) in India on account of its outsourcing activities to an Indian group company.

The court held that since the outsourcing of activities did not lead to any fixed place of business being at the disposal of the foreign company, no fixed place PE was constituted. It also held that no service PE came into existence since none of the customers of the foreign company were located in India, and hence services could not be said to have been furnished within India.

Tax Accounting Standards partially struck down

The central government had notified 10 ICDS (Income Computation and Disclosure Standards) with a view to standardise income and expense recognition for tax purposes.

These in some cases led to accelerated recognition of income or deferment of expenditure/losses. Some of these were in conflict with judicial precedents.

The Delhi High Court held that although the government was empowered to notify standards for income computation, it could not, in the exercise of such powers, override judicial precedents or statutory provisions. Accordingly, it struck down several standards (including those dealing with accounting policies, valuation of inventory, revenue recognition, construction contracts, etc.) to the extent they were contrary to binding judicial precedents or legislative provisions.

Dharawat
Gangadharan

Rakesh Dharawat (rakesh.dharawat@dhruvaadvisors.com) and Hariharan Gangadharan (hariharan.gangadharan@dhruvaadvisors.com)

Dhruva Advisors LLP

Tel: +91 22 6108 1000

Website: www.dhruvaadvisors.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The new office on the fourth floor of 4 More London will span 14,230 square feet, with the potential to expand to the first and second floors
MNEs now face a shift from modelling to execution as the side‑by‑side deal forces tax teams to upgrade systems, harmonise data, and prevent costly pillar two mismatches
As recent surveys suggest a disconnect between AI adoption and employee engagement, the big four risk digging themselves into a strategic hole
Almost three-quarters of surveyed tax professionals are concerned about inaccurate AI outputs; in other news, Dentons hired a partner from CMS to lead its Belgian tax team
Long-running, high-value and complex enquiries are a significant reason for HM Revenue and Customs’s increased TP yield, experts suggest
Landmark legal updates in India have led companies to prioritise specialised tax advisers over accountants, ITR has found
Brazil’s shift to a nationwide consumption tax is more than conceptual; it fundamentally transforms municipal revenue, enforcement, and administrative disputes
While some advisers praised the ruling’s definition of a ‘voucher’ for VAT purposes, a UK partner said the case left unanswered questions
While pillar two has been enacted on paper in Brazil, companies are encountering a range of practical compliance issues, ITR has heard
Moore, founding partner of the Chicago tax boutique which bears her name, shares her career wisdom for ITR’s new Women in Tax interview series
Gift this article