Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd. vs. Additional Director of Income Tax

In the Supreme Court, Hyatt argued that it provided only consultancy services from Dubai, with no fixed place of business in India. It claimed its employees’ brief visits did not meet the nine-month threshold for a PE under Article 5(2) of the DTAA.

The revenue countered, arguing that Hyatt’s role extended beyond advisory services and involved active control over hotel operations, supported by the long-term SOSA and employee presence.

The Court rejected Hyatt’s arguments, noting that the SOSA granted it extensive powers, including appointing key personnel, setting policies and managing finances.

The Court clarified that exclusive possession of a physical space is not required for a PE – temporary or shared use suffices if core business is conducted.