<?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 (11) TMI 905 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351026</link>
    <description>Disallowance under section 14A was deleted where no exempt income had been earned and Rule 8D lacked a sustainable basis. Leave encashment and section 40(a)(ia) issues were remanded for fresh factual verification. Taxiways, aprons and parking bays were treated as special-purpose airport assets integral to business operations and eligible for higher depreciation as plant and machinery. The passenger service fee security component, collected in escrow for security expenditure, was held not to be income under the real income and diversion by overriding title principles. Refurbishment and related civil works and the MMRDA contribution were treated as revenue expenditure, while the upfront fee created an intangible business right and the development fee was held non-taxable as a statutory receipt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:38:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 905 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351026</link>
      <description>Disallowance under section 14A was deleted where no exempt income had been earned and Rule 8D lacked a sustainable basis. Leave encashment and section 40(a)(ia) issues were remanded for fresh factual verification. Taxiways, aprons and parking bays were treated as special-purpose airport assets integral to business operations and eligible for higher depreciation as plant and machinery. The passenger service fee security component, collected in escrow for security expenditure, was held not to be income under the real income and diversion by overriding title principles. Refurbishment and related civil works and the MMRDA contribution were treated as revenue expenditure, while the upfront fee created an intangible business right and the development fee was held non-taxable as a statutory receipt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>