INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2086 & 2087/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2018-19 and 2022-23)

Qualcomm Incorporated, Vs. DCIT, Ernst & Young LLP, Circle-3(1), International Authorized representative, Taxation, New Delhi M/s. Qualcomm Incorporated, The Skyview

10, 18’F Survey No. 83,1, Raidurg, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AAACQ1484H Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv Ms Jasmin Amalsadvala, Adv Shri Naveen Agarwal, CAs Shri Jyoti Swaroop, CAs Revenue by: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/12/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.:

1. The Assessee Qualcomm Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as „assessee) 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). Identical issues are involved in both these appeals and hence, they are taken up and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for AY 2022-23:-

“1 The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO‟) erred in not passing the final assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act which is the outer time limit for passing the final assessment order and hence, the assessment proceedings are already time barred and liable to be quashed.

2 The Ld. AO erred in making additions to the total income of the Appellant for the subject AY in respect of royalty income received by the Appellant from the non- resident Original Equipment Manufacturers ('OEMs')/ licensees from sale of licensed products under the Patent Licensing Agreement as per provisions of section 9(l)(vi)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and Article 12(7) of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('tax treaty').

3 The Ld. AO erred in applying the provisions of Article 12(7)(b) of India-USA tax treaty for bringing to tax, the royalty income received by the Assessee from the non-resident OEMs/ licensees without appreciating the fact that the patents are used in a contracting state outside of India.

4. The Ld. AO erred in concluding assessment proceedings based on references drawn from the following documents pertaining to earlier years and without independently reviewing the facts or distinguishing the submissions of the Assessee for the subject AY:

• Assessment order of AY 2005-06 to AY 2008-09 which was quashed by the Hon'ble ITAT as barred by limitation under the Act;

• Technical Opinion issued by Technical Experts as part of remand proceedings of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 to AY 2008-09;

Extracts from Assessment Orders for AY 2012-13 and AY 2014-15;

5. • The Ld. AO and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in violating the principles of judicial discipline by not following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the Appellant's own case in AY 2000-01 to AY 2004-05, AY 2009-10 to AY 2017-18 and AY 2021- 22, wherein the additions under dispute were held to be non-taxable.

6. That the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP while making the same addition year after year, failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble ITAT in the Appellant's own case for AY 2000-01 to AY 2004-05, AY 2009-10 to AY 2017-18 and AY 2021-22, has decided this very issue in favor of the Appellant and hence their actions are arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to the settled principles of consistency and judicial discipline.

7. The Ld. AO erred in concluding the assessment for the subject AY relying on the assessment proceedings for AY 2014-15, wherein the Ld. AO concluded that the patent technology is used by the end-user in India without appre