Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of service tax - Intellectual Property Services - The Tribunal observed that the technology transfer did not qualify as intellectual property rights under Section 65(55a) of the Act, as it was confidential and not registered under Indian law. Therefore, it did not fall under the definition of intellectual property services as per Section 65(55b). Referring to past cases and Circular No. 80/2010/2004-S.T., the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the license fees and incidental expenses to the Russian company.
Levy of service tax - Intellectual Property Services - The Tribunal observed that the technology transfer did not qualify as intellectual property rights under Section 65(55a) of the Act, as it was confidential and not registered under Indian law. Therefore, it did not fall under the definition of intellectual property services as per Section 65(55b). Referring to past cases and Circular No. 80/2010/2004-S.T., the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the license fees and incidental expenses to the Russian company.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
