Held that the assessee, not being the owner of the trademark and having received the payment therefor under a distinct and separate licence agreement, the question of allowing a third-party the use, or right to use, of the property did not arise; that the services for which payments were received could not be considered to be ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right of property or information for which royalty had been paid; that, therefore, many of the determinative factors mentioned in the memorandum of understanding to the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement were absent to treat the centralised service fee as “fees for included services” under article 12(4); that the predominant purpose of the centralised service agreement and the overall arrangement between the parties was to provide advertisement, marketing and promotion of the hotel business; that the trademark, trade name, etc., made available by the assessee-company to the Indian hotels were an integral part of the business arrangement between them and merely incidental to carrying out the job of advertisement, publicity and sales promotion undertaken by the assessee, and the entire payment consideration made by the Indian hotels for such use was on account of the services rendered in relation to advertisement, publicity, etc.; that, thus, it was neither desirable nor possible to apportion any part of the consideration towards use of trademark, trade name, etc., by the Indian hotels, and, hence, such payment was not in the nature of “royalties” within the meaning of article 12(3)(a). As a result, the fees received by the assessee under the centralised services agreement could not be treated as fees for included services either under article 12(4)(a) or under article 12(4)(b) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and could only be treated as business income of the assessee. Hence, in the absence of a permanent establishment in India, it would not be taxable. (AY.2017-18)