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

The High Court’s dismissal of barrister Setu Kamal’s legal challenge represents the first successful strike-out under a new law on SLAPPs
IP lawyers, who say they are encouraging clients to build up ‘tariff resilience’, should treat the risks posed by recent orders as a core consideration in cross-border licensing
As Coca-Cola awaits a crucial 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision this year, its multibillion-dollar tax dispute could have profound implications for investors, cash flow, and corporate transparency
However, women in tax face greater career obstacles than their male counterparts, an exclusive ITR survey of more than 100 women tax leaders revealed
Under Jeff Soar’s leadership, WTS UK aims to scale to 100 partners within five years and challenge the big four
As the firm embarks on a major shakeup of its EMEA partnerships, some staff will be watching nervously
The buyout of Hucke and Associates continues Ryan’s streak of firm acquisitions; in other news, a UK appeal against VAT on private school fees was dismissed
Tax teams are responding to usual client demand in the region, albeit with increased working from home flexibility, local sources indicate
A 120-plus-day delay to refunds would cost taxpayers almost $3bn in additional interest, the Cato Institute warned; plus indirect tax updates from February
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s pessimistic pillar two forecast accompanied the UK chancellor’s muted Spring Statement, dubbed ‘as dull as possible’ by one adviser
Gift this article