COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3. vs. SHERATON INTERNATIONAL LLC

ITA - 265 / 2023HC Delhi08 May 20232 pages

For Petitioner: RUCHIR BHATIA

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court noted that the issue of taxability of centralized services as FTS/FIS under the Indo-US DTAA had already been decided by a coordinate bench.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the taxability of fees for centralized services rendered to Indian customers. The High Court was informed that a coordinate bench had previously dismissed similar appeals for the same assessee in earlier assessment years.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but relates to taxation of services under DTAA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 265/2023

Pg. 1 of 2 $~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision : 08.05.2023 + ITA 265/2023 & CM APPL. 23184/2023 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3.

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

versus

SHERATON INTERNATIONAL LLC

..... 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 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 23184/2023 [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 265/2023

This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the Income Tax Appellate order dated 17.10.2019. 8. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present matter is whether the fee Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:24.06.2023 16:10:23 Signature Not Verified

ITA 265/2023

Pg. 2 of 2 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 the coordinate bench of this court in ITA No. 434/2022 and 435/2022. 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →