Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
The CESTAT held that a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution had occurred when the appellant granted the right to use the brewery license to Skol/Sab Miller through the License Agreement. The consideration received by the appellant under the License Agreement cannot be subjected to service tax or clubbed with the consideration under the Lease Deed for "renting of immovable property" service. The Commissioner's findings to the contrary were set aside. The License Agreement and Lease Deed were separate documents, and merely because the Lease Deed mentioned procuring an endorsement/sub-license, it did not make the License Agreement an integral part of the Lease Deed. The License Agreement gave complete freedom to Skol/Sab Miller to operate the brewery without hindrance. The Commissioner's reasoning that no "sale" took place due to restrictions was incorrect, as a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A)(d) is distinct from a regular "sale." Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner adjudicating the show cause notices was set aside.
The CESTAT held that a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution had occurred when the appellant granted the right to use the brewery license to Skol/Sab Miller through the License Agreement. The consideration received by the appellant under the License Agreement cannot be subjected to service tax or clubbed with the consideration under the Lease Deed for "renting of immovable property" service. The Commissioner's findings to the contrary were set aside. The License Agreement and Lease Deed were separate documents, and merely because the Lease Deed mentioned procuring an endorsement/sub-license, it did not make the License Agreement an integral part of the Lease Deed. The License Agreement gave complete freedom to Skol/Sab Miller to operate the brewery without hindrance. The Commissioner's reasoning that no "sale" took place due to restrictions was incorrect, as a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A)(d) is distinct from a regular "sale." Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner adjudicating the show cause notices was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
