<?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>1959 (1) TMI 24 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166613</link>
    <description>Tax on cinematograph shows under the Mysore Cinematograph Shows Tax Act, 1951 was treated as a levy on entertainments and amusements within Entry 62 of List II, not as a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments under Entry 60 of List II, so Article 276(2) did not limit the levy. The omission of the word &quot;cinemas&quot; from Entry 62 did not bar taxation of cinema exhibitions, because the expressions &quot;entertainments&quot; and &quot;amusements&quot; were held wide enough to include them and the broad constitutional language was not narrowed by the separate reference in Entry 33. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the levy was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (1) TMI 24 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166613</link>
      <description>Tax on cinematograph shows under the Mysore Cinematograph Shows Tax Act, 1951 was treated as a levy on entertainments and amusements within Entry 62 of List II, not as a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments under Entry 60 of List II, so Article 276(2) did not limit the levy. The omission of the word &quot;cinemas&quot; from Entry 62 did not bar taxation of cinema exhibitions, because the expressions &quot;entertainments&quot; and &quot;amusements&quot; were held wide enough to include them and the broad constitutional language was not narrowed by the separate reference in Entry 33. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the levy was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166613</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>