Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
The case involved the interpretation of Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution regarding the transfer of right of use goods. The High Court examined whether contracts for hiring launch vehicles for a bridge project constituted a sale or a service under Section 65 (105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court held that the contracts were service contracts as the essential elements of a sale were absent. The court emphasized that the control over the vessels remained with the petitioners, making it a service contract. Citing the case of M/s K. P. Mozika, the court concluded that there was no transfer of right of use, and the contracts fell within the ambit of service contracts. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to process the application for refund. The writ petition was allowed.
The case involved the interpretation of Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution regarding the transfer of right of use goods. The High Court examined whether contracts for hiring launch vehicles for a bridge project constituted a sale or a service under Section 65 (105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court held that the contracts were service contracts as the essential elements of a sale were absent. The court emphasized that the control over the vessels remained with the petitioners, making it a service contract. Citing the case of M/s K. P. Mozika, the court concluded that there was no transfer of right of use, and the contracts fell within the ambit of service contracts. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to process the application for refund. The writ petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
