SC says Hyatt’s India operations are taxable under PE norms

In a ruling that has significant implications for multinational companies operating in India, the Supreme Court Thursday held that UAE-headquartered Hyatt International Southwest Asia, which provides hotel consultancy and advisory services in India as part of its business operations, has a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for tax purposes.

Upholding a Delhi High Court order that ruled against the hotel company, a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed various the appeals by Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd, while affirming the findings of the HC that Hyatt had a fixed place PE in India within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, and that, the income received under the strategic oversight services agreements (SOSA) is attributable to such PE and is, therefore, taxable in India.

The top court said that was undisputed that Hyatt's executives and employees paid frequent and regular visits to India to oversee operations and implement SOSA. “The finding of the assessing officer, based on travel logs and job functions, establish continuous and coordinated engagement, even though no single individual exceeded the 9-month stay threshold,” according to SC

Under Article 5(2)(i) of the agreement between the government of India and the United Arab Emirates for avoidance of double taxation (DTAA) Under Article 5(2)(i) of the DTAA, the relevant consideration is the continuity of business presence in aggregate – not the length of stay of each individual employee. Once it is found that there is continuity in the business operations, the intermittent presence or return of a particular employee becomes immaterial and insignificant in determining the existence of a PE, Justice Mahadevan, writing for the bench stated, adding the HC was correct in concluding that Hyatt's role was not confined to high-level decision making, but extended to substantial operational control and implementation.

The Dubai-based company’s ability to enforce compliance, oversee operations, and derive profit-linked fee from the hotel's earnings, demonstrate a clear and continuous commercial nexus, and control with the hotel's core functions, the judgment said, adding that this nexus satisfied the condition necessary for the constitution of a fixed place of PE under Article 5(1) of the India – UAE DTAA.

The top court further said that “the extent of control, strategic decision-making, and influence exercised by the appellant clearly establish that business was carried on through the hotel premises, satisfying the conditions under Article 5(1)…the hotel itself was the situs of the appellant’s primary business operations, carried out under its direct supervision and aligned with its commercial interests.”

Welcoming the ruling, Amit Baid of BTG Advaya said that "the judgment provides a clear conceptual framework for determining PE thresholds—frequent, regular visits by employees, rather than the duration of individual stays, is the key factor; once continuity of business presence is established, the return or rotation of individuals becomes irrelevant; and operational control, oversight, and income linked to core functions establish a commercial nexus necessary for a PE. The ruling could set a precedent for PE determinations in cases involving frequent employee travel to India."

The judgement establishes that substantive operational involvement, such as orchestrating policies, directly overseeing operations, and controlling implementation, will be closely scrutinised when determining the existence of a fixed place PE in India, said Varun Gakhar, Research Associate at Janssen-Sanghavi & Associates.

“In essence, oversight that crosses into operational control may trigger domestic tax exposure under Indian tax treaties. This judgement will have to be analysed closely by multinationals, as determining whether a PE exists is a very fact- and circumstance-specific question,” he added.

In 2008, Hyatt had entered into two strategic oversight services agreements with Asian Hotels Ltd. One was in respect of hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi owned by Asian Hotels, and the other pertained to a hotel in Mumbai. Under the terms of the agreement, Hyatt agreed to provide strategic planning services and "know-how" to ensure that Hyatt Regency was developed and operated as an efficient and a high quality international full-service hotel. Asian Hotels was thereafter reorganised and its name was subsequently changed to Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., which continued to own Hyatt Regency.

For the Assessment Year 2009-10, Hyatt filed its return of income declaring ‘Nil’ income and claiming a refund of around Rs 88 lakh. The Assessing Officer had passed assessment orders for 2009-18, holding that Hyatt’s activities constituted a business connection under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act; a PE under Article 5 of the DTAA; royalties and fees for technical services under both the Income Tax Act and DTAA.

However, Hyatt asserted that its income was not taxable under the Act as there was no specific Article under the DTAA for taxing Fees for Technical Services. It further stated that it did not have any fixed place of business, office, or branch in India, and that the presence of its employees in India during the relevant previous year did not exceed the nine-month threshold under Article 5(2) of the DTAA.

Therefore, the appellant claimed that it did not have a PE in India and that its business income was not taxable under Article 7 of the DTAA.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in December 2019 and then the HC rejected Hyatt’s contention that it did not have a PE in India.