TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the receipts from centralised marketing and reservation related services were taxable as fees for technical services or fees for included services under the Act and the India-USA DTAA, and whether any substantial question of law arose.
Analysis: The appeal concerned payments received for marketing contribution, reservation contribution and reservation system support services under inter-company arrangements linked to the hotel business model. The Court noted that the same issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years and that the present controversy was covered by prior decisions of the Court. It held that the question whether such receipts constituted fees for technical services or fees for included services stood concluded against the Revenue. On that basis, no substantial question of law was found to arise.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; the receipts were not held taxable on the basis urged by the Revenue, and no substantial question of law arose.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and was dismissed, leaving undisturbed the view that the impugned receipts did not warrant the Revenue's proposed tax treatment.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the material issue is already covered by binding or followed precedent on the taxation of similar service receipts, no substantial question of law arises in a section 260A appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
