<?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>TTK Logo Registered Under Copyright Act Cannot Be Taxed as Intellectual Property Right Under Section 65(55a)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86744</link>
    <description>CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the &quot;ttk&quot; logo used by group companies was a &quot;house mark&quot; registered under the Copyright Act, not a trademark. The Tribunal determined that the logo merely identified the manufacturer/distributor without establishing a relationship between the mark and products, thus not making the products patent or proprietary. Since the definition of &quot;Intellectual property right&quot; under Section 65(55a) explicitly excludes copyrights, and the &quot;ttk&quot; logo was registered under the Copyright Act, the service tax demand under IPR services was invalid. Following precedent from an earlier decision involving the same appellant and the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Astra Pharmaceuticals, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:34:45 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:34:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=808320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>TTK Logo Registered Under Copyright Act Cannot Be Taxed as Intellectual Property Right Under Section 65(55a)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86744</link>
      <description>CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the &quot;ttk&quot; logo used by group companies was a &quot;house mark&quot; registered under the Copyright Act, not a trademark. The Tribunal determined that the logo merely identified the manufacturer/distributor without establishing a relationship between the mark and products, thus not making the products patent or proprietary. Since the definition of &quot;Intellectual property right&quot; under Section 65(55a) explicitly excludes copyrights, and the &quot;ttk&quot; logo was registered under the Copyright Act, the service tax demand under IPR services was invalid. Following precedent from an earlier decision involving the same appellant and the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Astra Pharmaceuticals, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:34:45 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>