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

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: 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 & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Public country-by-country reporting is exposing multinational tax data to investors, journalists and competitors, creating fresh risks for businesses
Pillar two compliance is creating unprecedented data demands for multinational tax departments, making closer collaboration with FP&A teams essential for accurate reporting and audit readiness
Among the arrivals is Andrew Howell, who leaves scandal-hit PwC Australia after representing PepsiCo in a high-profile TP dispute
ITR's podcast examines whether the big four have overarching cultural issues and assesses the competitive threat of technology-backed transfer pricing firms
The UK advisory firm has seen its global revenues expand by £27.2m following its listing and acquisition of Baker Tilly South-East Europe
Tax-trained John Sams, previously the firm’s CFO and COO, was appointed after a rigorous process, KPMG said
From Mauritius substance rules to Kenyan SEP tax and South African anti-avoidance measures, businesses must navigate growing scrutiny of cross-border IP structures in Africa
ITR spoke to multinationals, advisers and software providers about a June 30 deadline defined by faulty portals, high compliance costs and hard lessons
After years of onerous pillar two prep, businesses will be galled in seeing tax revenues outweighed by compliance costs
Tax advisers should revisit India secondment arrangements after the EY US ruling strengthened the Centrica precedent and raised fresh withholding concerns
Gift this article