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

As pillar two reshapes global tax competition, the UK faces a crucial challenge: how to remain attractive to multinationals without sacrificing tax revenues
Pillar two may be raising less than expected, but professor René Matteotti says the regime is still changing multinational tax behaviour
Multinationals importing goods into Brazil may need to align TP files and customs documentation more closely as authorities gain new tools to challenge related-party transactions
The private equity-backed deal hands Grant Thornton immediate and impressive US scale, but World Tax data suggests the firm still has work to do to gain recognition
From Instagram content to £100m transactions, the founder of Thomas & Co International discusses building a modern tax and accounting firm for business founders
Growing GAAR scrutiny is driving taxpayers to look beyond legal form and demonstrate the commercial rationale underpinning tax-efficient structures
Pillar two has been clients’ ‘biggest headache’ but also a driver of growth for MHA, which believes it has the edge over its big four rivals
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
Gift this article