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 that the appellant's software solution, customized to meet clients' specific business requirements with modifications to source code, constituted a sale of goods rather than a service. The transaction involved transferring full control and possession of the customized software to clients with exclusive usage rights, while intellectual property remained with the appellant. The license fee collected was correctly subjected to VAT by the appellant and cannot simultaneously be liable for service tax, as these taxes are mutually exclusive. Following Quick Heal Technologies v. CST, Delhi [2020], the Tribunal held that the transaction constituted a sale of goods rather than provision of services. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalties.
CESTAT ruled that the appellant's software solution, customized to meet clients' specific business requirements with modifications to source code, constituted a sale of goods rather than a service. The transaction involved transferring full control and possession of the customized software to clients with exclusive usage rights, while intellectual property remained with the appellant. The license fee collected was correctly subjected to VAT by the appellant and cannot simultaneously be liable for service tax, as these taxes are mutually exclusive. Following Quick Heal Technologies v. CST, Delhi [2020], the Tribunal held that the transaction constituted a sale of goods rather than provision of services. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
