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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the centralized services fee received for rendering marketing, advertisement and allied services to Indian hotels was taxable as fees for technical services or as business income, and whether, in the absence of a permanent establishment in India, such receipts could be brought to tax in India.
Analysis: The Tribunal followed the binding decision in the assessee's group case and the Delhi High Court's ruling that similar payments for advertising, publicity and sales promotion related services were not royalty or fees for technical services. The services were held to constitute business income rather than technical services income. As the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, the business income could not be taxed in India under the relevant treaty provisions.
Conclusion: The centralized services fee was not taxable as fees for technical services and was taxable, if at all, only as business income; in the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the amount was not taxable in India. The Revenue's appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Payments for centralized marketing and allied services that are in substance business/commercial services, and not technical services or royalty, are taxable as business income only, and absent a permanent establishment in India, such income is not chargeable to tax in India under the treaty.