https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801027 Royalty paid by a partnership firm to partner co-owners for use of a jointly owned trade mark falls outside taxable intellectual-property services where the mark is deployed for the partnership's common business. A partner's contribution or use of jointly owned property for mutual partnership benefit does not establish separate service provider and recipient roles, consideration for a distinct service, or the required quid pro quo; it is service to self. Extended limitation is unavailable where royalty payments were disclosed in accounts and records and returns remained available, with no suppression or intent to evade. Availability of CENVAT credit to the firm further supported the bona fide belief that no taxable service relationship existed. en-us Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Oct 2026 05:44:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801027 Royalty paid by a partnership firm to partner co-owners for use of a jointly owned trade mark falls outside taxable intellectual-property services where the mark is deployed for the partnership's common business. A partner's contribution or use of jointly owned property for mutual partnership benefit does not establish separate service provider and recipient roles, consideration for a distinct service, or the required quid pro quo; it is service to self. Extended limitation is unavailable where royalty payments were disclosed in accounts and records and returns remained available, with no suppression or intent to evade. Availability of CENVAT credit to the firm further supported the bona fide belief that no taxable service relationship existed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801027