<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (6) TMI 479 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117481</link>
    <description>Wet leasing of aircraft with crew and operational support was treated as leasing, not as the business of operating aircraft, so section 44BBA did not apply. The arrangement remained a lease because the airline operated the flights under its own banner and retained commercial responsibility for carriage. The receipts were also held to accrue in India through a business connection, so the entire lease consideration was taxable in India rather than only a proportionate part. Where no books or supporting particulars were produced, income could be estimated on a reasonable evidentiary basis, and the 29.7 per cent estimate was upheld as not arbitrary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:31:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 479 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117481</link>
      <description>Wet leasing of aircraft with crew and operational support was treated as leasing, not as the business of operating aircraft, so section 44BBA did not apply. The arrangement remained a lease because the airline operated the flights under its own banner and retained commercial responsibility for carriage. The receipts were also held to accrue in India through a business connection, so the entire lease consideration was taxable in India rather than only a proportionate part. Where no books or supporting particulars were produced, income could be estimated on a reasonable evidentiary basis, and the 29.7 per cent estimate was upheld as not arbitrary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>