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 held that the royalty received for trademark licensing constitutes a 'deemed sale' of intellectual property rights, not a service. The transaction involving exclusive trademark license qualifies as transfer of right to use goods under constitutional provisions. Service tax was not leviable on the royalty amount. While the appellant's primary claim succeeded, the refund claim was rejected due to lack of evidence of tax reversal and application of unjust enrichment doctrine. The appellate tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, determining that the original service tax demand was wrongly confirmed and the royalty transaction did not attract service tax liability.
CESTAT held that the royalty received for trademark licensing constitutes a 'deemed sale' of intellectual property rights, not a service. The transaction involving exclusive trademark license qualifies as transfer of right to use goods under constitutional provisions. Service tax was not leviable on the royalty amount. While the appellant's primary claim succeeded, the refund claim was rejected due to lack of evidence of tax reversal and application of unjust enrichment doctrine. The appellate tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, determining that the original service tax demand was wrongly confirmed and the royalty transaction did not attract service tax liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.