<?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>2017 (2) TMI 157 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338457</link>
    <description>Profits from technical and ground handling services provided through the International Airlines Technical Pool were treated as covered by Article 8 of the relevant tax treaties, because the arrangement constituted participation in a genuine pool or joint operating mechanism for international air transport. The Court reasoned that the receipts were derived from pool participation rather than separate taxable business income in India, so they were protected from Indian tax. It also found the earlier British Airways ruling distinguishable, noting differences in treaty wording, reciprocity, and the pool structure. The result was that the assessees&#039; treaty-based exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Apr 2017 14:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 157 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338457</link>
      <description>Profits from technical and ground handling services provided through the International Airlines Technical Pool were treated as covered by Article 8 of the relevant tax treaties, because the arrangement constituted participation in a genuine pool or joint operating mechanism for international air transport. The Court reasoned that the receipts were derived from pool participation rather than separate taxable business income in India, so they were protected from Indian tax. It also found the earlier British Airways ruling distinguishable, noting differences in treaty wording, reciprocity, and the pool structure. The result was that the assessees&#039; treaty-based exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>