<?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>2014 (7) TMI 492 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249455</link>
    <description>The court interpreted Government Orders on entertainment tax, highlighting the shift towards tax exemptions for cinema goers. It upheld the District Magistrate&#039;s order demanding tax deposit, emphasizing statutory obligations for cinema hall owners to remit taxes collected. The court differentiated between &quot;grant-in-aid&quot; and &quot;exemption&quot; schemes, affirming the obligation to deposit taxes despite exemptions. The matter was remanded following Supreme Court observations, with the petitioner&#039;s deposit acknowledged, but the writ petition dismissal upheld. The judgment focused on legal nuances, confirming the tax deposit requirement and dismissing the challenge against the District Magistrate&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 492 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249455</link>
      <description>The court interpreted Government Orders on entertainment tax, highlighting the shift towards tax exemptions for cinema goers. It upheld the District Magistrate&#039;s order demanding tax deposit, emphasizing statutory obligations for cinema hall owners to remit taxes collected. The court differentiated between &quot;grant-in-aid&quot; and &quot;exemption&quot; schemes, affirming the obligation to deposit taxes despite exemptions. The matter was remanded following Supreme Court observations, with the petitioner&#039;s deposit acknowledged, but the writ petition dismissal upheld. The judgment focused on legal nuances, confirming the tax deposit requirement and dismissing the challenge against the District Magistrate&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>