<?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>2019 (1) TMI 1370 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374205</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the tax liability of Rs. 76,78,126 imposed under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 on &#039;intellectual property service&#039; provided by M/s HYL Technologies to the appellant. The decision emphasized the requirement of intellectual property rights enforceability in India for tax liability to apply. The Tribunal highlighted that the tax levy should be based on intellectual property services provided by the holder of enforceable rights in India, excluding copyright but including trademarks, designs, and patents. The judgment stressed the importance of legal compliance and accurate interpretation of tax laws in cross-border transactions involving intellectual property services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 18:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=555382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1370 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374205</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the tax liability of Rs. 76,78,126 imposed under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 on &#039;intellectual property service&#039; provided by M/s HYL Technologies to the appellant. The decision emphasized the requirement of intellectual property rights enforceability in India for tax liability to apply. The Tribunal highlighted that the tax levy should be based on intellectual property services provided by the holder of enforceable rights in India, excluding copyright but including trademarks, designs, and patents. The judgment stressed the importance of legal compliance and accurate interpretation of tax laws in cross-border transactions involving intellectual property services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>