9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent that the facts discussed in assessee's own case by the Hon'ble High Court as well as by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2013-14 [ 2019 (11) TMI 1675 - ITAT DELHI] wherein took the view that the payments for advertising, publicity and the sales promotion services rendered by the assessee, a company incorporated and tax resident in USA to Indian company, was advisement, publicity and sales promotion keeping in mind the mutual interests and in the context, the use of trademark, trade name etc. and other enumerated services referred to in the agreement with the assessee were incidental to main services and, therefore, the payments received were neither in the nature of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, Explanation 2, nor in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration, the appellant had provided worldwide marketing and advertising services of the hotels through Starwood's worldwide system of sales, advertising, promotion, public relations and reservations in the usual course of its business to some hotels owned/managed by the Indian companies, all such services are provided from outside India. The assessee company has agreed to provide the following services to various hotels operating in India. The range of these services have been broadly classified as under:- Sales Marketing Loyalty Programs Reservations Service Technological Services Operational Services Training Programs/Human Resource The above services, according to the assessee company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for immediately preceding year i.e. Assessment Year 2013-14, the identical issue of FTS which was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal was decided in favour of the assessee vide order dated 18/11/2019 (ITA No. 5142/Del/2016) which was based on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DCIT vs. Sheraton International Inc. (2009) 313 ITR 267. The Ld. AR further submitted that the identical facts in case of Starwood which is a group company was decided by the Hon'ble High Court for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 in ITA No. 467/2018 for Assessment Year 2010-11 and ITA No. 713/2019 order dated 2/8/2019 for Assessment Year 2011-12. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that there are no distinguishing facts in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n India such business income was not taxable in India. 6. Further, on identical set of facts, in the case of Starwood (supra), Tribunal took a consistent view following the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court for the AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, and such view was upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in ITA No. 467/2018 by order dated 18/4/2018 for Assessment year 2010-11, in ITA No. 713 of 2019 by order dated 02/08/2019 for Assessment Year 2011-12. Since the facts are identical and the issue is no longer res Integra, we do not find any reason to take a different view from the view taken by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court for the immediately preceding years. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
