US company's hotel service payments ruled business income, not technical fees under Section 9(1)(vii), non-taxable without Indian establishment

ITAT Delhi held that payments received by a US-incorporated non-resident company from Indian hotel customers for centralized services constitute business income, not Fee for Technical Services (FTS) or Fee for Included Services (FIS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act or Article 12(4)(a) of the Indo-US DTAA. Following previous tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case, the court determined that absent a Permanent Establishment in India, such business income is not taxable in India under the DTAA provisions. Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payments received by the assessee from its Indian customers for Centralized Services constitute Fee for Technical Services (FTS) 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.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Nature of Payments for Centralized Services:
The Revenue contended that the payments received by the assessee, a US-based company, from Indian hotel owners for providing Centralized Services should be classified as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) or Fee for Included Services (FIS) under both the Income Tax Act and the Indo-US DTAA. The Assessing Officer (AO) had treated these receipts as FTS/FIS and completed the assessment accordingly.

2. CIT(A)'s Findings:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition made by the AO, observing that the issue was previously decided in favor of the assessee's group concern, Sheraton International Inc., by the Delhi High Court. The CIT(A) noted that the payments were in the nature of business income and not FTS/FIS, as the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, thus not taxable under Article 7 of the India-USA DTAA.

3. Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal reviewed the CIT(A)'s decision, which referenced multiple judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's ruling in Sheraton International Inc. and Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc., confirming that similar payments were business income and not FTS/FIS. The Tribunal emphasized that the services provided by the assessee, such as marketing, reservation, and operational services, did not qualify as technical services under the treaty.

4. Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal highlighted consistent rulings in favor of the assessee, including decisions by the Delhi High Court and ITAT in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years. The Tribunal reiterated that the payments for Centralized Services were business income, not taxable in India due to the absence of a PE.

5. Revenue's Appeal:
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal affirming that the issue was well-settled by higher judicial authorities. The Tribunal found no new arguments or evidence from the Revenue to warrant a different conclusion.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the payments received by the assessee for Centralized Services were business income and not FTS/FIS under the Income Tax Act or the Indo-US DTAA. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 13th February 2024.

---