Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 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 HC held that the impugned G.O.s issued by the State prohibiting theatre owners from collecting convenience fees on online ticket bookings lacked statutory authority under the ED Act, as Sections 7, 10, and 4(2)(b) do not empower such prohibition. The Court found that these G.O.s violated Article 19(1)(g) as they imposed an unreasonable restriction without legislative backing, being mere executive orders rather than valid laws. Furthermore, the G.O.s could not be upheld under Article 162, as they did not constitute valid State decisions fulfilling constitutional requirements. Consequently, the Court declared clauses prohibiting collection of convenience fees unconstitutional and quashed them, affirming the fundamental right of theatre owners to conduct their business without unlawful restraint. The petition was allowed, restoring the right to collect convenience fees on online ticket bookings.
The HC held that the impugned G.O.s issued by the State prohibiting theatre owners from collecting convenience fees on online ticket bookings lacked statutory authority under the ED Act, as Sections 7, 10, and 4(2)(b) do not empower such prohibition. The Court found that these G.O.s violated Article 19(1)(g) as they imposed an unreasonable restriction without legislative backing, being mere executive orders rather than valid laws. Furthermore, the G.O.s could not be upheld under Article 162, as they did not constitute valid State decisions fulfilling constitutional requirements. Consequently, the Court declared clauses prohibiting collection of convenience fees unconstitutional and quashed them, affirming the fundamental right of theatre owners to conduct their business without unlawful restraint. The petition was allowed, restoring the right to collect convenience fees on online ticket bookings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.