What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal had held that centralized services fees earned by the assessee were not taxable. This decision was based on a coordinate bench's judgment in a similar case.

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning AY 2014-15. The Revenue conceded that the issue was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case for other AYs.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether centralized services fees earned by the assessee were taxable in India, considering prior judicial precedents.

CIT vs Starwood (M) International Inc | Delhi High Court 2023

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 294/2023 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Pratyaksh Gupta, Advocate.

versus

STARWOOD (M) INTERNATIONAL INC. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Divyanshu Agrawal with Ms Pooja Mittal and Mr Vaibhav Niti, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R %

22.05.2023

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.27008/2023 1. This is application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, the period of delay involved is 300 days. 3. Mr Divyanshu Agrawal, who appears on behalf of the non- applicant/respondent, 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 294/2023

1/3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:53

ITA 294/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 7. The appellant/revenue has laid challenge to the order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “ITAT”]. 8. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, concedes that the issue raised in the instant matter is covered in the respondent/assessee’s own case in other AYs. 8.1 In this context, Mr Bhatia has placed before us, the order dated 05.04.2023 passed in ITA 197/2023 and ITA 200/2023. 9. The Tribunal, in short, has held that centralized services fee earned by the respondent/assessee is not taxable. The fee concerns various aspects, such as sales and marketing, loyalty programs, reservation service, technological service, operational service and training programs/human resources. 10. The Tribunal has noted, that the issue stands covered by the judgment of the coordinate bench in the case of Director of Income Tax v. Sheraton International Inc (2009) 178 taxmann 84 (Del). 11. Furthermore, in the respondent/assessee’s case for other AYs, the coordinate bench has followed the same approach i.e., accepted the ratio of the judgment in Sheraton International Inc. 12. In view of the above, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the above-captioned appeal. 12.1 Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is closed. ITA 294/2023

2/3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:53

13.

In view of the fact, that the appellant/revenue has preferred an appeal qua the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheraton International Inc., it is made clear, that if the appellant/revenue were to succeed in the said matter, parties will abide by the final decision rendered by the Supreme Court.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

MAY 22, 2023/pmc

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 294/2023

3/3

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:01:53

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. STARWOOD (M) INTERNATIONAL INC.

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments