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-932/2007HC Delhi2009:DHC:910930 January 200928 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal 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. Services like the use of trademarks, trade names, and other enumerated services, including loyalty programs, were incidental to this main business arrangement. Consequently, the payments received were neither royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) nor fees for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii), nor taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA. The Tribunal rightly classified the payments as business income. As the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, such business income was not taxable in India as per Article 7 of the DTAA. The Tribunal's finding that there was no evidence of the agreement being a colourable device was also upheld. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning and noted that these were findings of fact, which could only be challenged as perverse, and no such question was proposed by the Revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against a common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning assessment years 1995-96 to 2000-01. The assessee, Sheraton International Inc., a US-based non-resident, provided services to Indian hotels. Initially, fees were taxed as business income. Post India-USA DTAA, the assessee claimed no permanent establishment and thus no tax liability in India, which was accepted by the Revenue. However, in 1999, the Revenue re-examined the issue, treating an Indian hotel company as the assessee's agent and issuing notices. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined taxable income based on best judgment, analyzing agreements and concluding payments were for technical/consultancy services, training, trademark use, technical know-how, and reservation network, thus taxable as fees for technical services or royalty.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide several questions of law, including: 1. Whether the amount received by the assessee from Indian hotels for services rendered was business profits not liable to tax under Article 7 of the Indo-American DTAA? 2. Whether the income was taxable in India under Sections 4, 5, and 9 of the Income Tax Act? 3. Whether the income was taxable as 'royalty' or 'fee for included services' under Article 12 of the DTAA? 4. Whether the amount was '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 services were ancillary to the main object of promoting hotel business worldwide? 6. Whether the relevant agreement was a colourable device to avoid tax in India? The Revenue argued that the payments constituted royalty or fees for technical services, taxable in India. The assessee contended that the services were primarily for publicity, advertisement, and sales promotion, falling under business profits, and since it had no permanent establishment in India, such income was not taxable under the DTAA. The assessee also argued that the agreements were not colourable devices. The judgment notes that questions (G), (H), and (J) were not pressed by the Revenue.

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:9109-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 →