DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. SHERATON INTERNATIONAL INC.

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A, Section 4, Section 5, Section 9, Section 9(1)(vi), Section 9(1)(vii), Section 195(2), Section 142, Section 163, Section 234B, Section 209(1)(a), Section 209(1)(2)

PDF · subscribers

ITA-921/2007HC Delhi2009:DHC:908030 January 200928 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal's findings were not faulted and no substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal had correctly concluded that the primary service rendered by the assessee was advertisement, publicity, and sales promotion for the mutual interest of the assessee and its client-hotels. Consequently, the use of trademarks, trade names, or other enumerated services were considered incidental to this main business arrangement. The Tribunal rightly held that the payments received were neither royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) nor fee for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, nor taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA. The payments were thus correctly classified as business income. Since the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, this business income was not taxable in India as per Article 7 of the DTAA. The Tribunal also found no evidence that the agreements were a colourable device. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing that these were findings of fact which could only be challenged as perverse, and no such question was proposed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (Tribunal) common judgment dated 04.10.2006 concerning assessment years 1995-96 to 2000-01. The appeals involved cross-appeals filed by both the assessee, Sheraton International Inc. (a US-incorporated non-resident), and the Revenue. The assessee provided services to Indian hotels, including publicity, advertisement, and sales, under various agreements. Initially, fees were taxed as business income with TDS. Post the India-USA DTAA (effective 01.04.1991), the assessee claimed no permanent establishment and thus no tax liability, which the Revenue initially accepted. However, the Revenue later re-examined the matter, treating the Indian hotels as agents and issuing notices to the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined taxable income based on best judgment, considering the services rendered as technical, consultancy, use of trademark, know-how, and reservation network, deeming them fee for included services.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide several questions of law, with the Revenue primarily focusing on the following: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that amounts received by the assessee for services rendered to Indian hotels were business profits not taxable in India under Article 7 of the Indo-American DTAA. 2. Whether the income from services rendered to Indian clients/hotels was taxable in India under Sections 4, 5, and 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the income was taxable as 'royalty' or 'fee for included services' under Article 12(3)(a), 12(4)(a), or 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. 4. Whether the amounts received were 'royalty' as per Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) and (vii) of the Act. 5. Whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted the agreements to conclude that the intention was to promote hotel business worldwide and other services were ancillary. 6. Whether the agreements constituted a colourable device to avoid tax in India. The Revenue also initially proposed questions regarding contributions to loyalty programs falling under Article 12 of the DTAA, and issues related to interest under Section 234B and Section 209(1)(a)/(2), but later stated that questions G and H were not pressed as tax liability was nil. The assessee contended that the services were primarily for advertisement, publicity, and sales promotion for mutual interest, with other services being incidental. The Revenue argued that the services constituted royalty or fee for included services. The Tribunal's findings were based on the interpretation of the agreements and the DTAA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 4,Section 5,Section 9,Section 9(1)(vi),Section 9(1)(vii),Section 195(2),Section 142,Section 163,Section 234B,Section 209(1)(a),Section 209(1)(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2009:DHC:9080-DB

More judgments on Section 4

Prakash Dayaram Chandnani, Rajkot vs ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot
ITA 927/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, Daman
ITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, Daman
ITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), Amreli
ITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), Amreli
ITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16

All 1,145 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →