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

PDF · subscribers

ITA - 932 / 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. It agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion 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. The Court found that the use of trademarks, trade names, or other enumerated services, including loyalty programs like SCI and FFP, were incidental to this main business arrangement. Consequently, the payments received were correctly held by the Tribunal to be in the nature of business income, not royalty or fee for technical services under the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Since the assessee had no permanent establishment in India as per Article 7 of the DTAA, this business income could not be taxed in India. The Court also noted that the Tribunal had found no evidence of the agreements being a colourable device, and these were findings of fact that could only be challenged if perverse, which was not argued 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 (effective 01.04.1991), the assessee claimed no permanent establishment in India, leading the Revenue to permit remittances without tax deduction. However, in 1999, the Revenue re-evaluated, treating fees as taxable and issuing notices to the assessee and its agent. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined taxable income based on best judgment, analyzing agreements and concluding services included technical/consultancy, training, trademark use, know-how, and reservation network, deeming payments as fees for technical services and royalty. The ITAT, however, held the services were for publicity, advertisement, and sales promotion, with other services being incidental, and thus business income not taxable in India due to lack of permanent establishment.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide several questions of law. The Revenue, through its counsel, confined its submissions to the following: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that amounts received by the assessee from Indian hotels for services rendered 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? 3. Whether the income was taxable in India as 'royalty' or 'fee for included services' under Article 12(3)(a) and/or Article 12(4)(a) and/or Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA? 4. Whether the amount received was 'royalty' as contemplated in 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 relevant agreements were a colourable device to avoid tax in India? The Revenue did not press questions (G), (H), and (J) concerning interest under Section 234B and scope of remand proceedings, stating it was because tax liability was nil. Assessee's contentions were not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but their position was that the payments were business income not taxable in India due to no Permanent Establishment, and not royalty or fees for technical services. Revenue's contentions, as reflected in the questions, were that the payments constituted royalty, fee for included services, or fee for technical services, and that the agreements might be a colourable device.

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

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →