<?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>2014 (9) TMI 1147 - KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200400</link>
    <description>Composite brewing, bottling and brand-licence arrangements do not amount to a transfer of the right to use a trademark where the owner retains control, inspection rights, termination power and the ability to direct specifications and use. Applying the constitutional test for transfer of the right to use goods and the deemed-sale framework under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, the Tribunal treated the contract bottling units and licensees as permitted users under continuing supervision, not as transferees of exclusive possession or control. Royalty received for packaged mineral water under the brand was likewise treated as consideration for permitted use and associated services, not VATable transfer. The State&#039;s cross appeals to restore reassessment orders therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:34:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 1147 - KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200400</link>
      <description>Composite brewing, bottling and brand-licence arrangements do not amount to a transfer of the right to use a trademark where the owner retains control, inspection rights, termination power and the ability to direct specifications and use. Applying the constitutional test for transfer of the right to use goods and the deemed-sale framework under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, the Tribunal treated the contract bottling units and licensees as permitted users under continuing supervision, not as transferees of exclusive possession or control. Royalty received for packaged mineral water under the brand was likewise treated as consideration for permitted use and associated services, not VATable transfer. The State&#039;s cross appeals to restore reassessment orders therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>