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 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.