Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Court held that the demand for levy/fee/royalty on advertisements made without legislative sanction is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution. The imposition of royalty cannot be equated with tax/levy. The advertising companies had agreed to pay a royalty of Re.1 per square foot in 2005, and the Corporation had the power to revise the rate. However, the Corporation's resolution to charge enhanced royalty u/s 431B of the Act was misplaced as royalty is not tax. Royalty and tax are distinct concepts. The Court balanced equities by directing the advertising companies to pay the enhanced rate of Rs.10 per square foot with 6% simple interest from the date of communication of the resolution. Any excess amount paid over Re.1 per square foot shall be adjusted towards the final liability determined by the Corporation.
The Court held that the demand for levy/fee/royalty on advertisements made without legislative sanction is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution. The imposition of royalty cannot be equated with tax/levy. The advertising companies had agreed to pay a royalty of Re.1 per square foot in 2005, and the Corporation had the power to revise the rate. However, the Corporation's resolution to charge enhanced royalty u/s 431B of the Act was misplaced as royalty is not tax. Royalty and tax are distinct concepts. The Court balanced equities by directing the advertising companies to pay the enhanced rate of Rs.10 per square foot with 6% simple interest from the date of communication of the resolution. Any excess amount paid over Re.1 per square foot shall be adjusted towards the final liability determined by the Corporation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
