Aircraft lease credits and rentals: capital receipt treatment, deductible lease outgo, and treaty protection against TDS disallowance.

Aircraft engine supplier credits were treated as capital receipts because their true character arose from the purpose of selecting a particular engine, not from trading operations; they were therefore outside revenue income, section 28(iv), and capital gains treatment. Proportionate lease rentals were held to be separate revenue expenditure, deductible on their own footing under the mercantile system and not tainted by the earlier credit arrangement. Supplementary rent under aircraft leases was not disallowable under section 40(a)(i): pre-1 April 2007 payments fell within section 10(15A), while later payments were treated as aircraft rental covered by the India-Ireland DTAA and not chargeable in India.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether supplier credits received from aircraft engine suppliers were capital receipts not taxable as revenue income or under section 28(iv), and not chargeable as capital gains; (ii) whether proportionate lease rentals were deductible under section 37(1); and (iii) whether supplementary rent on aircraft lease agreements was liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i), including the availability of exemption under section 10(15A) and the India-Ireland DTAA.

Issue (i): whether supplier credits received from aircraft engine suppliers were capital receipts not taxable as revenue income or under section 28(iv), and not chargeable as capital gains.

Analysis: The credits were held to have arisen as consideration for selecting a particular engine and not as trading receipts from the assessee's airline business. The decisive test applied was the purpose of the receipt, and the later mode of aircraft acquisition did not alter its character. Since the assessee was not carrying on any separate business of engine selection or trading in such credits, section 28(i) and section 28(iv) were inapplicable. The capital-receipt character also defeated the Revenue's alternative capital-gains theory because no taxable consideration accrued on the assignment of rights.

Conclusion: The supplier credits were capital receipts, not revenue income, not taxable under section 28(iv), and not chargeable as capital gains.

Issue (ii): whether proportionate lease rentals were deductible under section 37(1).

Analysis: The lease-rental outgo and the earlier engine-credit arrangement were treated as separate and independent transactions. The existence of capital receipts from engine selection did not make the later lease rentals expenditure incurred for earning a capital receipt. Applying the mercantile system and the settled principle that business liability must be tested on its own footing, the lease rentals were held to be a revenue outgoing allowable in computation.

Conclusion: The disallowance of lease rentals under section 37(1) was unsustainable and was deleted.

Issue (iii): whether supplementary rent on aircraft lease agreements was liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i), including the availability of exemption under section 10(15A) and the India-Ireland DTAA.

Analysis: For lease agreements executed before 1 April 2007, the supplementary rent was treated as part of aircraft lease rent and not as payment for spares, facilities, or services by the lessor; therefore, no tax deduction obligation arose and the expenditure could not be disallowed under section 40(a)(i). For agreements executed after 1 April 2007, the payment was held to be rental for aircraft use. Under the India-Ireland DTAA, royalty expressly excluded aircraft, and Article 8 assigned taxing rights over aircraft rental profits to the state of residence of the lessor. On that basis, the payment was not chargeable to tax in India and TDS disallowance was not justified.

Conclusion: The supplementary rent was not liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(i); the pre-1 April 2007 payments were exempt under section 10(15A), and the post-1 April 2007 payments were not chargeable to tax in India under the DTAA.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed, while the assessee succeeded on the substantive disallowance issues relating to lease rentals and supplementary rent, with only the general and not-pressed grounds not surviving.

Ratio Decidendi: The character of a receipt or outgoing in income-tax law is determined by its true purpose and commercial substance at the point of accrual, and a later mode of utilisation or accounting treatment does not change that character; further, aircraft lease rentals protected by treaty or statutory exemption cannot be disallowed for want of tax deduction when they are not payments for spares, facilities, or services by the lessor.

---