What is DIT v. Sheraton International Inc. authority for?

Payments received by a non-resident for advertising, publicity, and sales promotion services, where the use of trademarks and trade names is incidental, do not qualify as 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act or the India-USA DTAA.

How many judgments cite DIT v. Sheraton International Inc.?

105 judgments on BharatTax cite DIT v. Sheraton International Inc. (313 ITR 267), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DIT v. Sheraton International Inc. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 147, Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 9(1)(vii), Section 143(3).

DIT v. Sheraton International Inc. (313 ITR 267)

Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 950/BANG/2017[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

…nd features are not used independently or de hors the distribution agreement but they are incidental or ancillary for the purpose of carrying out the marketing and distribution of Adword program. The Delhi High Court in DIT v Sheraton International Inc [2009] 313 ITR 267 held that when the use of trade mark, trade name etc are incidental to the main service of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and further when there is no consideration payable for such use of trade mark, trade name etc, the consideration cannot be characterised as royalty. Applying the said principle, in the present case, use of Google…

Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 949/BANG/2017[2014 - 15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

…nd features are not used independently or de hors the distribution agreement but they are incidental or ancillary for the purpose of carrying out the marketing and distribution of Adword program. The Delhi High Court in DIT v Sheraton International Inc [2009] 313 ITR 267 held that when the use of trade mark, trade name etc are incidental to the main service of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and further when there is no consideration payable for such use of trade mark, trade name etc, the consideration cannot be characterised as royalty. Applying the said principle, in the present case, use of Google…

Deputy Director of Income Tax(International Taxation), Bangalore vs. M/S Google India P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1295/BANG/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

…nd features are not used independently or de hors the distribution agreement but they are incidental or ancillary for the purpose of carrying out the marketing and distribution of Adword program. The Delhi High Court in DIT v Sheraton International Inc [2009] 313 ITR 267 held that when the use of trade mark, trade name etc are incidental to the main service of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and further when there is no consideration payable for such use of trade mark, trade name etc, the consideration cannot be characterised as royalty. Applying the said principle, in the present case, use of Google…

Google India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1190/BANG/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.1190/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

…nd features are not used independently or de hors the distribution agreement but they are incidental or ancillary for the purpose of carrying out the marketing and distribution of Adword program. The Delhi High Court in DIT v Sheraton International Inc [2009] 313 ITR 267 held that when the use of trade mark, trade name etc are incidental to the main service of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and further when there is no consideration payable for such use of trade mark, trade name etc, the consideration cannot be characterised as royalty. Applying the said principle, in the present case, use of Google…

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…cillary. We reject the contention advanced on behalf of GCC that the predominant purpose of the Heads Agreement was to acquire only „live‟ ball-by-ball Feed. Accordingly, the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sheraton International Inc. (313 ITR 267) would not be of any aid to GCC. We would also like to observe that a number of judgments were relied upon on behalf of GCC wherein it has been held that consideration for live feed does not amount royalty. However, all the decisions could not be applied to the present case in view of the factual findings returned by us, after examining various a…

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…cillary. We reject the contention advanced on behalf of GCC that the predominant purpose of the Heads Agreement was to acquire only „live‟ ball-by-ball Feed. Accordingly, the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sheraton International Inc. (313 ITR 267) would not be of any aid to GCC. We would also like to observe that a number of judgments were relied upon on behalf of GCC wherein it has been held that consideration for live feed does not amount royalty. However, all the decisions could not be applied to the present case in view of the factual findings returned by us, after examining various a…

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…cillary. We reject the contention advanced on behalf of GCC that the predominant purpose of the Heads Agreement was to acquire only „live‟ ball-by-ball Feed. Accordingly, the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sheraton International Inc. (313 ITR 267) would not be of any aid to GCC. We would also like to observe that a number of judgments were relied upon on behalf of GCC wherein it has been held that consideration for live feed does not amount royalty. However, all the decisions could not be applied to the present case in view of the factual findings returned by us, after examining various a…

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1526/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalrenaissance Services Bv, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 Pan: Aaecr4995E ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Paras Savla/Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ssee, hence we refrain from referring to and dealing with the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R in support of his claim that the same could not be held as royalty. We find that the High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT Vs. Sheraton International Inc (2009) 313 ITR 267 (Del) had observed that consideration received by the assessee for providing access to reservation system could not be brought to tax as FTS in the hands of the assessee We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC) had in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case before it…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1516/BANG/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 IT(TP)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 IT(TP)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 IT(TP)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/s.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of No.3, RMZ Infinity Tower-E Income-tax (International v. 4th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. PAN : AACCG0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anan…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1515/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 IT(TP)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 IT(TP)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 IT(TP)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/s.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of No.3, RMZ Infinity Tower-E Income-tax (International v. 4th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. PAN : AACCG0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anan…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1514/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 IT(TP)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 IT(TP)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 IT(TP)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/s.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of No.3, RMZ Infinity Tower-E Income-tax (International v. 4th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. PAN : AACCG0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anan…

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Dy. D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1513/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 It(Tp)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.3, Rmz Infinity Tower-E Income-Tax (International V. 4Th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. Pan : Aaccg0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anand, Advocate, Miss.Priya Tandon, Advocate & Sri.Vinay Mangla, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Were Originally Disposed By The Itat Vide Its Common Order Dated 23.10.2017. On Further Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee, The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.04.2021 In Ita No.883/2017, 897/2017 To 899/2017, Restored The Matter To The Itat For De Novo Consideration. The Relevant Finding Of The Hon’Ble High Court Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol AnandFor Respondent: Sri.K.V.Aravind, Standing Counsel

Section 201Section 201(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 IT(TP)A No.1514/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 IT(TP)A No.1515/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 IT(TP)A No.1516/Bang/2013 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/s.Google India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of No.3, RMZ Infinity Tower-E Income-tax (International v. 4th Floor, Old Madras Road Taxation), Circle 1(1) Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 016. PAN : AACCG0527D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Sri.Anmol Anan…

DCIT (It) -4(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1759/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ssee, hence we refrain from referring to and dealing with the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R in support of his claim that the same could not be held as royalty. We find that the High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT Vs. Sheraton International Inc.(2009) 313 ITR 267 (Del) had observed that consideration received by the assessee for providing access to reservation system could not be brought to tax as FTS in the hands of the assessee. We further find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC) had in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case before it…

DCIT (It) -4 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1758/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ssee, hence we refrain from referring to and dealing with the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R in support of his claim that the same could not be held as royalty. We find that the High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT Vs. Sheraton International Inc.(2009) 313 ITR 267 (Del) had observed that consideration received by the assessee for providing access to reservation system could not be brought to tax as FTS in the hands of the assessee. We further find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC) had in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case before it…

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

1758/Mum/2021 2013-14

ITA 1453/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ssee, hence we refrain from referring to and dealing with the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R in support of his claim that the same could not be held as royalty. We find that the High Court of Delhi in the case of DIT Vs. Sheraton International Inc.(2009) 313 ITR 267 (Del) had observed that consideration received by the assessee for providing access to reservation system could not be brought to tax as FTS in the hands of the assessee. We further find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 1 (SC) had in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case before it…