Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the "ttk" logo used by group companies was a "house mark" registered under the Copyright Act, not a trademark. The Tribunal determined that the logo merely identified the manufacturer/distributor without establishing a relationship between the mark and products, thus not making the products patent or proprietary. Since the definition of "Intellectual property right" under Section 65(55a) explicitly excludes copyrights, and the "ttk" logo was registered under the Copyright Act, the service tax demand under IPR services was invalid. Following precedent from an earlier decision involving the same appellant and the Supreme Court's ruling in Astra Pharmaceuticals, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the "ttk" logo used by group companies was a "house mark" registered under the Copyright Act, not a trademark. The Tribunal determined that the logo merely identified the manufacturer/distributor without establishing a relationship between the mark and products, thus not making the products patent or proprietary. Since the definition of "Intellectual property right" under Section 65(55a) explicitly excludes copyrights, and the "ttk" logo was registered under the Copyright Act, the service tax demand under IPR services was invalid. Following precedent from an earlier decision involving the same appellant and the Supreme Court's ruling in Astra Pharmaceuticals, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
