QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the royalty income received by the assessee is not taxable in India under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the Indo-USA Tax Treaty. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for multiple assessment years.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Qualcomm Incorporated, appealed against the assessment orders for AY 2018-19 and 2022-23 concerning the taxability of royalty income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on royalty income received from non-resident Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).
What were the issues?
The key issues were the taxability of royalty income received by a non-resident from Indian OEMs and whether the AO correctly applied the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the India-USA tax treaty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 9(1)(vi),Section 115A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.269 citing39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · HC
- Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT213 citing95 ITD 269 · 2005 · ITAT
- CIT v. Havells India Ltd.97 citing352 ITR 376 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Ciba India Ltd.65 citing69 ITR 692 · 1968 · SC
- CIT v. Wavin (India) Ltd.19 citing236 ITR 314 · 1996 · SC
- Qualcomm Incorporated v. DDIT15 citing93 Taxmann.com 80 · 2018 · HC
- 671 ITR 2277 citing671 ITR 227
- 811 ITR 2437 citing811 ITR 243
- 153 Taxmann.com 1463 citing153 Taxmann.com 146 · HC
- (d) ADIT (IT) v. Credit Agricole Indosuez3 citing58 SOT 97 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: The Assessee Qualcomm Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as „assessee) 1. by filing the present appeals in ITA No. 2086/Del/2025 for AY 2018-19 and ITA No. 2087/Del/2025 for AY 2022-23 sought to set aside the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „the Act‟) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel-II (DRP) dated 19.12.2024 u/s 144C(5). Identic
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…Delhi10 Dec 2025Allowed
Also relies on Qualcomm Incorporated v. DDIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the royalty income received by the assessee is not taxable in India under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the Indo-USA Tax Treaty. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in ...
- Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…Delhi14 Nov 2024Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Wavin (India) Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that royalty income received by the assessee from OEMs located outside India is not taxable in India, following its own previous decisions and jurisdictional High Court rulings. The Tribunal found that ...
- Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New…Delhi13 Jun 2023Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Wavin (India) Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the royalty income received by the assessee was not taxable in India. It reasoned that what was transferred was a limited right to use copyrighted material, not the copyright itself, and this did n...
- Qualcomm Technologies Inc., Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International…Delhi1 Jul 2019Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Wavin (India) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the revenue received under the BREW agreements was for the right to use copyrighted material, not the copyright itself, and therefore not taxable as royalty under the Income Tax Act or the India-US...
- Qualcomm Technologies Inc., Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International…Delhi12 Feb 2019Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Wavin (India) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the payments received under the BREW agreements and test tools agreements do not constitute royalty income under the Income Tax Act or the India-US DTAA. The Tribunal distinguished between the righ...
More judgments on Section 9(1)(vi)
- Ahaguru Education Technology Private… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1993/CHNY/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Slack Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 979/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Slack Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4310/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Atos Information Technology (Singapore) Pte… vs DCIT, (Internation Taxation) Circle…ITA 6745/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs Times Content Limited( Now Known As Times…ITA 5333/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
