Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
HC ruled that renting cinematographic equipment constituted a deemed sale with transfer of right to use, not a taxable service under Section 66 of Finance Act, 1994. The agreement demonstrated transfer of both possession and effective control to the hirer, evidenced by inspection rights, damage reporting obligations, and equipment condition acknowledgments. The transaction qualified as deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of Constitution, involving transfer of right to use goods for valuable consideration. HC quashed the original order that had incorrectly interpreted the agreement terms regarding possession and control transfer. The case established that where right of possession and effective control transfers, service tax cannot be levied as it falls outside the scope of taxable services.
HC ruled that renting cinematographic equipment constituted a deemed sale with transfer of right to use, not a taxable service under Section 66 of Finance Act, 1994. The agreement demonstrated transfer of both possession and effective control to the hirer, evidenced by inspection rights, damage reporting obligations, and equipment condition acknowledgments. The transaction qualified as deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of Constitution, involving transfer of right to use goods for valuable consideration. HC quashed the original order that had incorrectly interpreted the agreement terms regarding possession and control transfer. The case established that where right of possession and effective control transfers, service tax cannot be levied as it falls outside the scope of taxable services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
