Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.