Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
$~43 & 44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 197/2023 & CM No.16018/2023
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3
..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Priya Sarkar, Jr Standing Counsel.
versus
SHERATON INTERNATIONAL LLC
..... Respondent Through: Mr Divyanshu Agrawal, Ms Pooja Mittal and Mr Vaibhav Niti, Advs.
+ ITA 200/2023 & CM No.16032/2023
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3
..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Priya Sarkar, Jr Standing Counsel.
versus
SHERATON INTERNATIONAL LLC
..... Respondent Through: Mr Divyanshu Agrawal, Ms Pooja Mittal and Mr Vaibhav Niti, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
O R D E R %
05.04.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] ITA 197/2023 & 200/2023
page 1 of 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 13:11:06
CM No.16018/2023 in ITA 197/2023 CM No.16032/2023 in ITA 200/2023
Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA 197/2023 ITA 200/2023 2. The above-captioned appeals concern Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 [ITA No.197/2023] and AY 2015-16 [ITA No.200/2023]. 3. The challenge in these appeals is laid to the common order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. The impugned order has been passed in favour of the respondent/assessee. 3.1 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. 4. 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). 5. 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.
ITA 197/2023 & 200/2023
page 2 of 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 13:11:06
In view of the above, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 6.1 Accordingly, the above-captioned appeals are closed. 7. 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
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
APRIL 5, 2023
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 197/2023 & 200/2023
page 3 of 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 13:11:06