<?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>2020 (6) TMI 1 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395626</link>
    <description>Reassessment under section 148 was sustained where no return had been filed and the Assessing Officer recorded reasons showing prima facie escapement of income. Receipts from technical handling and allied services performed through an international airline pool were treated as covered by Article 8(2) of the India-France tax treaty, because pool participation is expressly protected and the receipts could not be recharacterised as fees for technical services merely due to their technical nature. The alleged permanent establishment was also not accepted on the facts recorded. Accordingly, the reopening challenge failed, while the treaty-based exclusion for the pool receipts was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 1 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395626</link>
      <description>Reassessment under section 148 was sustained where no return had been filed and the Assessing Officer recorded reasons showing prima facie escapement of income. Receipts from technical handling and allied services performed through an international airline pool were treated as covered by Article 8(2) of the India-France tax treaty, because pool participation is expressly protected and the receipts could not be recharacterised as fees for technical services merely due to their technical nature. The alleged permanent establishment was also not accepted on the facts recorded. Accordingly, the reopening challenge failed, while the treaty-based exclusion for the pool receipts was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>