Centralized service payments and treaty fee characterization were governed by binding precedent, leaving no substantial question of law.

Payments for centralized services were held not to constitute fee for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act or fee for included services under Article 12(4)(a) of the Indo-US DTAA. The Delhi HC noted that the issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in Sheraton International Inc., that no distinguishing feature was shown, and that the earlier decision had not been stayed and continued to bind. On that basis, the revenue appeal was governed by the prior judgment and no substantial question of law survived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the payments received by the assessee for centralized services constituted fee for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or fee for included services under Article 12(4)(a) of the Indo-US DTAA, and whether the revenue appeal was covered by the earlier binding decision in Sheraton International Inc.

Analysis: The issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in Sheraton International Inc., and no distinguishing feature was shown to take the present case outside that ruling. The earlier decision had not been stayed, and therefore continued to operate. In these circumstances, the present appeal was governed by the earlier judgment, and no substantial question of law survived for consideration.

Conclusion: The payments were not treated as fee for technical services or fee for included services, and the appeal failed.

---