TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we are of the considered view that the revenue received by the assessee for providing centralized services is not in the nature of Fee for Technical Services (FTS) u/s 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2, but it is a business income. Since the assessee is not having any PE in India, its business income earned is not taxable in India. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 202/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 28-9-2017 - Shri N.K. Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : S/Shri Amit Arora Vishal Misra, CAs. For the Revenue : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Senior DR. ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deductor Hotel Centralized Service Fee 1 Bramha Bazaz Hotels Limited Le Meridien Pune 94,18,529 2 Mayank Sharma Enterprises Private Limited Le Meridien Jaipur 50,81,173 3 BD P Hotels (India) P Ltd Le Meridien Mumbai 1,19,27,456 4 M-Far Hotels Ltd. Le Meridien Kochi 46,25,612 5 Associated Hotel Ltd Le Meridien Ahmedabad 41,57,323 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Ld. DR for the revenue relied upon the order of the AO. However, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the order passed by the ld. CIT (A). 7. For the sake of ready reference, the findings returned by the ld. CIT (A) allowing the appeal are reproduced as under :- 8. I have carefully considered the above submissions, and the contentions of the appellant. I have also perused the assessment order and the orders of the Hon'ble ITAT and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for the AYs. 1995-96 to 2000-2001 in the case of Sheraton International Inc (group concern). The issue of taxability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact finding authority that main services rendered by assessee, a company incorporated and tax resident in USA, to Indian company, was advertisement, publicity and sales promotion keeping in mind their mutual interests and in that context, the use of trademark, trade name etc. and other enumerated services referred to in the agreement with the assessee were incidental to main service- Tribunal thus rightly concluded that the payments received were neither in the nature of royalty under s. 9(l)(vi), Expln. 2 nor in the nature of fee for technical services under s. 9(1) (vii), Expln. 2, but business income and assessee not having any PE in India such business income was not taxable in India- There was nothing on record to show that the agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|