DIT v. Sheraton International Inc.

313 ITR 267High Court2009#1038 most cited

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.

105

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Sheraton International Inc. · 313 ITR 267 · Section 9(1)(vii) · fees for technical services · FTS · royalty income · India-USA DTAA · advertising and sales promotion · incidental trademark use · non-resident taxation · hotel services

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 143(3)Section 143(3) of the Income Tax ActSection 144C

Issues it is cited on

section 9(l)(vi)section 9(l)section 14(a)fees for included servicessection 9(1)(vi)use of equipmentroyalty incomecopyrighted articlesection 9(1)(vii)colourable devicefees for technical servicessection 9(1)

Judgments citing DIT v. Sheraton International Inc.

Reebok India Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

ITA 954/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…the assessee. These Marks etc. are used alongside the assessee’s trademark or logo etc. for the purposes of advertisement and promotion and not for the sale of its licensed products. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Sheraton International Inc (2009) 313 ITR 267 (Delhi) has held that the use of trademark, trade name etc. in rendering of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion services is neither in the nature of royalty nor fee for technical services. We will discuss this case in detail infra. Thus, it is overt that consideration for use of Designations and Marks of ICC by the assessee during its…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Reebok India Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

ITA 1620/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shivakumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…the assessee. These Marks etc. are used alongside the assessee’s trademark or logo etc. for the purposes of advertisement and promotion and not for the sale of its licensed products. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Sheraton International Inc (2009) 313 ITR 267 (Delhi) has held that the use of trademark, trade name etc. in rendering of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion services is neither in the nature of royalty nor fee for technical services. We will discuss this case in detail infra. Thus, it is overt that consideration for use of Designations and Marks of ICC by the assessee during its…

DCIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Shm Shipcare, Mumbai

ITA 1047/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.1047/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-17(…

Director of Income Tax-II vs. Sheraton International Inc

The appeals are dismissed both on

ITA/55/2016HC Delhi29 Jan 2016

Bench: The Appeal Could Be Re-Filed. The Department Has A Cell In The High Courtwhich Is Underthe Supervision Of A Deputy Cit. He

…$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 6. + ITA 53/2016 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel. versus SHERATON INTERNATIONAL INC. Respondent Through; Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. WITH 8. + ITA 55/2016 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel. versus SHERATON INTERNATIONAL INC. Respondent Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. AND ITA 56/2016 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel. versus SHERATON INTERNATIONAL INC. Respondent ITANos. 53/2016, 55/20…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Itc Hotels Ltd

ITA/477/2009HC Karnataka15 Jun 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 195

…made by the respondent assessee to Sheraton would amount to ‘business income’ or ‘royalty’ or ‘fee for technical service’ and said issue has been settled by the Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs Sheraton International Inc – (2009) 313 ITR 267 and it has been held that such income would be ‘business income’ not liable for payment of tax under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Since 6 the recipient (Sheraton) of payment made by the respondent/assessee itself has been he…