Patent Royalty Deduction Scheme to Boost Innovation and R&D in India : Clause 152 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 80RRB of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Clause 152 Deduction in respect of royalty on patents.

Income Tax Bill, 2025

Introduction

Clause 152 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 proposes a statutory framework for granting deductions to individuals in respect of royalty income derived from patents registered under the Patents Act, 1970. This provision is a successor and apparent re-enactment, with certain modifications and clarifications, of Section 80RRB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The clause must also be read in conjunction with the procedural requirements articulated in Rule 19AD and Rule 29A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which prescribe the authorities and forms for certification of such income, especially where the income is sourced from outside India.

The deduction for royalty on patents is a targeted tax incentive designed to promote innovation and reward individual inventors by providing relief on royalty income. The legislative context of such provisions is deeply rooted in policy objectives to foster research and development, encourage patent registration, and provide a competitive framework for Indian inventors in the global intellectual property regime.

Objective and Purpose

The primary objective of Clause 152 is to incentivize individual inventors residing in India to innovate and commercialize their inventions by providing a tax deduction on royalty income earned from patents. The legislative intent is threefold:

1. To encourage innovation and research by providing tangible fiscal benefits to patentees.
2. To align the Indian tax regime with global practices that recognize and reward intellectual property creation.
3. To ensure that the benefit is not misused by laying down strict eligibility, certification, and procedural requirements, particularly in respect of foreign-sourced income.

Historically, Section 80RRB was inserted by the Finance Act, 2003, as part of a broader initiative to modernize India's intellectual property laws and support the knowledge economy. Clause 152 appears to continue and clarify this policy, potentially updating and streamlining certain procedural aspects.

Detailed Analysis of Clause 152 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

1. Eligibility Criteria (Sub-section 1)

Clause 152(1) specifies that the deduction is available only to an assessee who is:

• (a) An individual resident in India;
• (b) A patentee;
• (c) In receipt of income by way of royalty in respect of a patent registered on or after 1st April 2003 under the Patents Act, 1970; and
• (d) Having gross total income for the tax year which includes such royalty.

This mirrors the eligibility criteria u/s 80RRB, ensuring that only individuals (not companies, partnerships, or other entities) who are resident and who have registered patents under the Indian law (post-2003) can claim the deduction. The focus on patents registered after 1st April 2003 is consistent with the amendments to the Patents Act and the policy shift towards incentivizing recent and future innovations.

2. Quantum of Deduction (Sub-section 2)

The deduction is capped at the lower of the actual royalty income or Rs. 3 lakh per tax year. This ceiling is identical to that u/s 80RRB of the 1961 Act. The cap ensures that the benefit is targeted and does not disproportionately favor high-earning patentees, while still providing meaningful relief.

3. Compulsory Licence Scenario (Sub-section 3)

Where a compulsory licence is granted under the Patents Act, the deduction is restricted to the royalty amount determined by the Controller of Patents under the terms of such licence. This provision is crucial to prevent windfall gains to patentees in cases where the State intervenes to grant compulsory licences in the public interest, thereby ensuring that the deduction is confined to the statutorily determined royalty.

This is consistent with the first proviso to Section 80RRB, reflecting a continuity in legislative approach.

4. Foreign Source Income (Sub-sections 4 and 6)

Clause 152(4) stipulates that, for royalty income earned from sources outside India, only the portion brought into India in convertible foreign exchange within six months (or such extended period as permitted by the competent authority) shall be eligible for deduction. Sub-section (6) further mandates that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such foreign income unless a certificate, in the prescribed form, from the prescribed authority is furnished with the return of income.

These provisions are critical for two reasons:

• They encourage repatriation of foreign earnings into India, thus contributing to foreign exchange reserves and the domestic economy.
• They prevent abuse by ensuring that only actual, realized income is incentivized, and that appropriate verification is conducted by prescribed authorities.

This is analogous to the second proviso and sub-section (3) of Section 80RRB, as well as the procedural requirements u/rs 19AD and 29A.

5. Certification and Compliance (Sub-section 5)

No deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee furnishes a certificate in the prescribed form, duly signed by the prescribed authority, along with the return of income. This procedural safeguard ensures that only genuine patentees who have actually earned qualifying royalty income can claim the deduction, subject to verification by the Controller of Patents (for domestic income) or the Reserve Bank of India/authorized authority (for foreign income).

This reflects the requirements u/s 80RRB(2) and the mechanisms set out in Rule 19AD (Form 10CCE, certification by Controller) and Rule 29A (Form 10H, certification for foreign income).

6. Definitions (Sub-section 7)

Clause 152(7) provides definitions for key terms such as "Controller," "lump sum," "patent," "patentee," "patent of addition," "patented article," "patented process," "royalty," and "true and first inventor." These are largely consistent with the definitions in the Explanation to Section 80RRB, with minor clarifications:

• "Lump sum" is defined as a non-refundable advance payment for royalties, clarifying the tax treatment of such payments.
• "Royalty" is defined to include consideration for transfer of rights, imparting information, use of patent, and related services, but excludes capital gains and consideration for sale of products manufactured with the patented process or article. This prevents double-dipping and ensures that only genuine royalty income is incentivized.
• The definitions of "patentee," "patent of addition," "patented article," "patented process," and "true and first inventor" are aligned with the Patents Act, ensuring legal consistency.

Practical Implications

The practical impact of Clause 152 is significant for individual inventors and the broader innovation ecosystem:

• Individuals: Eligible inventors can reduce their taxable income by up to Rs. 3 lakh per year, improving the post-tax return on innovation and commercialization of patents.
• Compliance: The requirement of certification by the Controller of Patents or the Reserve Bank of India/authorized authority (for foreign income) imposes a compliance burden but ensures integrity of the deduction.
• Foreign Income: The repatriation requirement encourages inventors to bring foreign earnings into India, contributing to the economy and aligning with exchange control regulations.
• Regulators: The Controller of Patents and RBI are given a gatekeeping role, ensuring that only legitimate claims are processed and preventing revenue leakage.
• Policy Impact: The provision supports the government's policy of promoting innovation, protecting intellectual property, and integrating Indian inventors into the global knowledge economy.

Comparative Analysis with Section 80RRB, Rule 19AD and Rule 29A

1. Comparison with Section 80RRB

• Eligibility: Both provisions restrict the benefit to individuals resident in India who are patentees of patents registered under the Patents Act, 1970, after 1 April 2003.
• Quantum of Deduction: The Rs. 3 lakh cap is retained in Clause 152, mirroring Section 80RRB.
• Compulsory Licence: The treatment of royalty under compulsory licence scenarios is identical, with the deduction capped at the Controller-determined royalty.
• Foreign Income: Both provisions require repatriation of foreign income within six months (or extended period) and certification by prescribed authorities.
• Certification: The requirement for certification by the Controller (domestic income) and RBI/authorized authority (foreign income) is preserved, with the forms and authorities to be prescribed.
• Definitions: The definitions in Clause 152 are largely carried over from Section 80RRB, with clarifications on "lump sum" and exclusion of certain types of consideration from "royalty."
• Anti-Double Deduction: Section 80RRB(4) provides that no deduction shall be allowed under any other provision for the same income. Clause 152 does not explicitly repeat this, but such anti-abuse provisions may exist elsewhere in the new Bill or be implied.

2. Comparison with Rule 19AD

• Rule 19AD prescribes that the Controller of Patents is the authority for certification u/s 80RRB(2), and the certificate must be in Form No. 10CCE.
• Clause 152(5) and (6) similarly require certification in the prescribed form, by the prescribed authority, aligning with the procedural safeguards of Rule 19AD.
• The Income Tax Bill, 2025 may introduce new forms or authorities, but the underlying principle of independent verification remains unchanged.

3. Comparison with Rule 29A

• Rule 29A prescribes Form No. 10H for certification u/s 80RRB(3) for foreign-sourced income and designates the RBI or other authorized authority as the certifying authority.
• Clause 152(6) retains this approach, requiring certification for foreign income in the prescribed form from the prescribed authority, likely to be the RBI or an equivalent institution.
• Both Rule 29A and Clause 152 thus ensure that only repatriated, verified foreign income is eligible for deduction.

4. Points of Departure and Clarification

• Clause 152 provides slightly more detailed definitions, particularly of "lump sum" and the activities constituting "royalty," which may help avoid interpretational disputes.
• The explicit exclusion of capital gains and consideration for sale of products from the definition of "royalty" is more clearly stated in Clause 152.
• Any procedural changes (such as new forms or authorities) will be specified in the rules to be framed under the Income Tax Bill, 2025.
• Clause 152 is silent on the anti-double deduction provision present in Section 80RRB(4); this may be addressed elsewhere in the new Bill or through general anti-abuse rules.

Ambiguities and Potential Issues in Interpretation

• Definition of "Royalty": The exclusion of consideration for the sale of products manufactured using the patented process or article could generate disputes where the line between royalty and sale proceeds is blurred, especially in complex licensing arrangements.
• Certification Process: The requirement for certification by the Controller or RBI may result in procedural delays or inconsistencies, particularly for inventors unfamiliar with the process.
• Foreign Income Repatriation: The six-month period (subject to extension) may not always be practical, especially where foreign jurisdictions impose capital controls or other restrictions.
• Joint Patentees: The treatment of joint patentees is clarified, but practical allocation of royalty and deduction among multiple patentees may require further guidance.
• Transition Issues: The shift from Section 80RRB to Clause 152 may necessitate transitional provisions to ensure that inventors are not disadvantaged or subject to double compliance.

Practical Compliance Requirements

• Inventors must maintain documentary evidence of patent registration, royalty agreements, and actual receipt of royalty income.
• For foreign income, inventors must ensure timely repatriation and obtain certification from the RBI or other authorized authority.
• Return of income must be accompanied by the prescribed certificate (Form 10CCE for domestic income, Form 10H for foreign income under the current rules).
• Inventors must track the Rs. 3 lakh cap and ensure that the same income is not claimed under multiple provisions.

Comparative Perspective: International Jurisdictions

Many jurisdictions, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, provide tax incentives for intellectual property income, though the structure and quantum of relief vary. The Indian approach, with its cap and focus on individual inventors, is relatively targeted and conservative, seeking to balance fiscal prudence with the need to incentivize innovation. The requirement for repatriation of foreign income is also a common feature in many developing economies seeking to boost foreign exchange reserves.

Conclusion

Clause 152 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, substantively continues the policy embodied in Section 80RRB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with clarifications and minor refinements. The provision is well-calibrated to incentivize individual inventors, promote the registration and commercialization of patents, and ensure that the benefit is subject to robust checks and compliance requirements. The procedural and definitional clarifications in Clause 152, along with the anticipated continuation of certification requirements u/rs analogous to Rule 19AD and Rule 29A, provide a coherent framework for the deduction of royalty income from patents.

Going forward, the effective implementation of Clause 152 will depend on the clarity of subordinate legislation (rules and forms), the efficiency of the certification process, and the ability of tax authorities to resolve interpretational ambiguities, especially in complex or cross-border scenarios. Continuous monitoring and periodic review may be warranted to ensure that the provision remains fit for purpose in a rapidly evolving innovation ecosystem.

---

Full Text:

Clause 152 Deduction in respect of royalty on patents.

 

Dated: 19-4-2025