<?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>2026 (5) TMI 1591 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792389</link>
    <description>Technical know-how, designs and drawings transferred by a foreign entity were held outside intellectual property rights service because the definition requires a right in intangible property recognised under Indian law, and the materials were not shown to be registered or otherwise protected thereunder. The engineering arrangement was also held outside consulting engineering service because the contract was composite and execution-oriented, involving design, detailing, prototype work and start-up support, rather than standalone advice or consultancy in an engineering discipline. The stated principle is that unregistered foreign know-how not recognised under Indian law is not taxable as intellectual property rights service, and composite development agreements cannot be split into taxable consultancy merely because engineering skills are involved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 14:52:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1591 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792389</link>
      <description>Technical know-how, designs and drawings transferred by a foreign entity were held outside intellectual property rights service because the definition requires a right in intangible property recognised under Indian law, and the materials were not shown to be registered or otherwise protected thereunder. The engineering arrangement was also held outside consulting engineering service because the contract was composite and execution-oriented, involving design, detailing, prototype work and start-up support, rather than standalone advice or consultancy in an engineering discipline. The stated principle is that unregistered foreign know-how not recognised under Indian law is not taxable as intellectual property rights service, and composite development agreements cannot be split into taxable consultancy merely because engineering skills are involved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>