Delay Excused: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Substantial Question of Law; Outcome Tied to Pending Supreme Court Case.

The appellant's application for condonation of a 300-day delay in re-filing the appeal was granted without opposition from the respondent. The ITAT's decision, which was challenged by the appellant, held that the centralized services fee earned by the respondent was not taxable for the Assessment Year 2014-15, consistent with prior rulings in the respondent's case for other years. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was identified. It was noted that if the appellant prevails in a related Supreme Court matter, the parties will adhere to the Supreme Court's final decision.

---

---

Issues involved: Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding taxation of centralized services fee earned by the respondent/assessee.

Condonation of Delay Issue:
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, citing a delay of 300 days. The respondent did not oppose the request for condonation, and the delay was accordingly condoned. The application was disposed of in the terms mentioned.

Taxation of Centralized Services Fee Issue:
The appeal pertained to the Assessment Year 2014-15, with the appellant challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 30.07.2021. It was noted that the issue raised in the appeal was covered in the respondent's own case in other Assessment Years. The Tribunal held that the centralized services fee earned by the respondent was not taxable, encompassing various services such as sales and marketing, loyalty programs, reservation service, technological service, operational service, and training programs/human resources. The Tribunal relied on the judgment in the case of Director of Income Tax v. Sheraton International Inc (2009) 178 taxmann 84 (Del), which had been followed in the respondent's case for other Assessment Years. As no substantial question of law arose for consideration, the appeal was closed. It was clarified that if the appellant succeeded in a related matter before the Supreme Court, the parties would abide by the final decision rendered by the Supreme Court.

---