Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 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.