<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (11) TMI 870 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164971</link>
    <description>A royalty arrangement permitting use of a trademark and logo, read as a whole, was treated as consideration for transfer of the right to use goods under section 5E of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court found that the express permission to use the mark, reinforced by the royalty clause, was the core of the transaction, while ancillary obligations such as product suggestions, formulas, recipes, and marketing support were incidental and did not alter its taxable character. It further held that the arrangement remained within the taxing provision despite being non-exclusive, because effective control over use was discernible from the agreement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355032" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 870 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164971</link>
      <description>A royalty arrangement permitting use of a trademark and logo, read as a whole, was treated as consideration for transfer of the right to use goods under section 5E of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court found that the express permission to use the mark, reinforced by the royalty clause, was the core of the transaction, while ancillary obligations such as product suggestions, formulas, recipes, and marketing support were incidental and did not alter its taxable character. It further held that the arrangement remained within the taxing provision despite being non-exclusive, because effective control over use was discernible from the agreement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>