Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.