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 163, Section 142, Section 234B, Section 209(1)(a), Section 209(1)(2)

PDF · subscribers

ITA - 921 / 2007HC Delhi30 January 200928 pages

For Petitioner: SANJEEV SABHARWAL

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in its findings. The Tribunal had 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 considered incidental to this main business arrangement. Consequently, the payments received were neither royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) nor fee for technical services under Section 9(1)(vii), nor taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA. The Tribunal rightly held the payments as business income, and 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 and noted that these were findings of fact, not challenged as perverse, and therefore binding.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against a common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) concerning assessment years 1995-96 to 2000-01. The assessee, Sheraton International Inc., a US-incorporated non-resident, entered into agreements with Indian hotels for services like publicity, advertisement, and sales, including reservations. Initially, fees were taxed as business income with TDS. Post-DTAA, the assessee claimed no Indian tax liability due to no Permanent Establishment (PE). The Revenue later initiated proceedings, treating the Indian hotels as agents and issuing notices to the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined taxable income based on best judgment, analyzing the agreements and concluding payments were for technical/consultancy services, trademark use, know-how, and reservation network, thus taxable as fee for included services or royalty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amount received by the assessee from Indian hotels for services rendered was in the nature of 'business profits' not liable to tax under Article 7 of the Indo-American DTAA? The assessee argued that the services were for worldwide promotion of hotel business, with other services being ancillary, and that it had no PE in India, making the income non-taxable. The Revenue contended the income was taxable as 'business profits' or otherwise under Indian tax provisions. 2. Whether the income was taxable in India under Sections 4, 5, and 9 of the Act? The Revenue argued for taxability, while the assessee maintained non-taxability due to lack of PE. 3. Whether the income was taxable as 'royalty' or 'fee for included services' under Article 12 of the Indo-American DTAA? The Revenue asserted taxability under these heads, while the assessee countered that the payments were for business promotion and not royalty or fees for included services. 4. Whether the agreements constituted a colourable device to avoid tax? The Revenue alleged this, but the assessee denied it, arguing the agreements were genuine business arrangements.

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 163,Section 142,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 →