What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a coordinate bench had previously dismissed similar appeals for the same issue in AY 2015-16. Consequently, the court found no substantial question of law arising in the present appeal.

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order for AY 2014-15. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 300 days. The core issue was whether fees for centralized services rendered to Indian customers were taxable as FTS/FIS under the Indo-US DTAA.

What were the issues?

Whether fees received for centralized services rendered to Indian customers are taxable as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) or Fee for Included Services (FIS) under the Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

CIT vs Sheraton Overseas Management… | Delhi High Court 2023

ITA 264/2023

Pg. 1 of 2

$~103 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision : 08.05.2023 + ITA 264/2023 & CM APPL. 23183/2023 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3

..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing counsel with Shri Pratyakash Gupta, Advocate

versus

SHERATON OVERSEAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr Divyanshu Agrawal, Ms Pooja Mittal and Mr Vaibhav Niti, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 23183/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 300 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 300 days. 3. Mr Divyanshu Agrawal, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 5. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 264/2023

This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:24.06.2023 16:10:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 264/2023

Pg. 2 of 2 short, “Tribunal”] order dated 30.07.2021. 8. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present matter is whether the fee received by the respondent/assessee on account of “centralized services” rendered to its Indian customers was taxable as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) and/or Fee for Included Services (FIS) under the Indo-US-DTAA. 9. We are informed by the counsel for the parties that this very issue came up for consideration in the respondent/assessee’s case in AY 2015-16 before a coordinate bench of this court in ITA No. 435/2022 and 434/2022. 9.1 The counsel says that the said appeals were dismissed by the coordinate bench via order dated 04.11.2022. 10. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, closed. 12. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copies of the order.

(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE

(GIRISH KATHPALIA) JUDGE 8th MAY, 2023 / as Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:24.06.2023 16:10:23 Signature Not Verified

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SHERATON OVERSEAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments