TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and circumstances f the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the entire payments received by the assessee from its Indian customers on account of Centralized Services viz. sales and marketing, reservation fee, centralized services fee and loyalty programs did not constitute Fee for Technical Services as defined u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or "Fee for included Services as defined under Article 12(4)(a) of the Indo-US DTAA. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Sheraton International Inc. (2009) 313 ITR 267 (Delhi HC) by ig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer, during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has offered the license fee of Rs. 2,88,58,648/-, it was offered for taxation. However, the other, Revenue receipt was not offered to tax. We noted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court but the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 39,68,09,190/- in respect of centralized fees including loyalty program, reservation fee and sales & marketing fees, Technological services, Operational Services, Training Programs/ Human Resources Fee, stating that the Department has not accepted the decision of Hon'ble High Court and it has preferred Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Apex Court against the decision of Hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.02.2020 passed by AO and the orders of Hon'ble Delhi High Court for AY 2000-01 in case of Sheraton international Inc (group-concern) have also been perused. The grounds in appeal relate to payment received for centralised services as the same were not offered to tax since such payment does not qualify as FTS/FIS in terms of section 9 of the Act as well as article 12 of the India USA-DTAA. 5.2 The appellant had filed its return of income on October 31, 2017 declaring income of Rs. 1,45,07,352 and claiming a refund of Rs.41,19,320. Further, the appellant had revised its return of income on March 20,2019 declaring income of Rs. 1,45,07,352 and claiming as refund of Rs.39,76,980 on account of Updating of form 26AS. The revenues r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.6 Further, the Appellant is of the view that the aforesaid issues raised by the AO in the assessment proceedings is based on similar facts and circumstances which have been decided in favour of the appellant by Delhi High Court in case of Sheraton International Inc (2009) 313 ITR 267 (Delhi). The assessing officer has not followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the ground that the said order of High Court has not been accepted by the department and is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the AO had failed in following the principles of judicial discipline. 5.7 As the issue of taxability of the appellants income from hotel related services provided to various hotels in India as r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of this Court in Director of Income Tax v. Sheraton International Inc (2009) 178 taxman 84 (Del) which answers the question in favour of Assessee and against the Revenue." 5.3 The issues raised by the appellant company has been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 29.04.2022 in ITA No. 2013/DEL/2019 in the case of appellant's own case wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has reversed the order passed by my predecessor for the A.Y 2015-2016. Relevant extract of the order of Hon'ble ITAT are as under: 26. The aforesaid decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court while dismissing Revenue's Appeal. The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal while deciding assessee's appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oordinate Bench in case of Marriott Hotel (supra), we are of the view that it is clearly distinguishable on facts. On a reading of the decision, it is very much clear that after examining the agreements entered into with the Indian hotels, the Bench has recorded a finding of fact that the agreements are interrelated/interlinked in essence that they refer to each other. Further, the Bench has observed that for all practical purposes, the clients (Indian hotels) have construed all the agreements as asingle agreement for the purpose to promote brand. Thus, in this factual context, the Bench has concluded that the assessee has split up the royally received into different segments. However, in the appeals before us, there are no such findings by....