TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under sections 147 and 148 was valid; (ii) whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could enhance the assessment under section 251 by bringing to tax royalty from network equipment; (iii) whether royalty received from non-resident OEMs was taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi)(c); (iv) whether the royalty was taxable under Article 12(7)(b) of the India-USA tax treaty; and (v) whether interest under sections 234A and 234B was leviable.
Issue (i): Whether reassessment under sections 147 and 148 was valid
Analysis: The reopening was supported by material in the form of press releases and newspaper reports indicating Qualcomm's CDMA patents, promotion of CDMA technology in India, negotiations concerning royalty, and possible income from India. At the stage of reopening, the test was only whether there was prima facie material and a rational nexus between that material and the formation of belief that income had escaped assessment. The material was held sufficient for that limited purpose.
Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were held valid and the challenge to reopening failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could enhance the assessment under section 251 by bringing to tax royalty from network equipment
Analysis: The royalty on network equipment was treated as arising from the same source as the royalty on handsets, namely the licensing of CDMA patents. The appellate power was held to extend to the whole subject-matter of assessment, and the equipment royalty was not treated as a new and independent source of income.
Conclusion: The enhancement under section 251 was upheld and was against the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether royalty received from non-resident OEMs was taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi)(c)
Analysis: Section 9(1)(vi)(c) was construed as requiring proof that the non-resident payer used the licensed right, property or information for a business carried on in India or for earning income from a source in India. On the facts, the OEMs manufactured products outside India, the agreements were not India-specific, and the mere sale of goods to Indian carriers or the assertion that title might pass in India did not establish business carried on in India. The Revenue also failed to show that the Indian carriers constituted a source of income in India for the OEMs. The embedded software and chipsets argument did not alter the character of the royalty assessed from patent licensing.
Conclusion: The royalty was held not taxable in India under section 9(1)(vi)(c), in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iv): Whether the royalty was taxable under Article 12(7)(b) of the India-USA tax treaty
Analysis: In view of the finding that the royalty was not taxable under the Act on the assessed facts, the treaty issue did not require separate adjudication for the result reached.
Conclusion: No separate adverse treaty liability was sustained against the assessee.
Issue (v): Whether interest under sections 234A and 234B was leviable
Analysis: Interest under section 234A was treated as mandatory. Interest under section 234B was not leviable because the relevant tax, if deductible, was the payer's obligation and the assessee could not be fastened with advance-tax default in those circumstances.
Conclusion: Interest under section 234A was upheld, while interest under section 234B was deleted.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on the core taxability issue and on section 234B interest, but failed on reopening, appellate enhancement, and section 234A interest, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Royalty paid by a non-resident payer is taxable under section 9(1)(vi)(c) only if the Revenue proves that the licensed right, property or information was used by that payer for a business carried on in India or for earning income from a source in India; mere offshore manufacture followed by sales to Indian buyers, without business operations in India or an Indian source of income for the payer, is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
