<?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>1995 (11) TMI 442 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172576</link>
    <description>Broadly defined &quot;admission&quot; and &quot;payment for admission&quot; under the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 were treated as covering cable television entertainment supplied to employees in their residences, even without physical entry to a place of entertainment, so the levy of entertainment tax was upheld in principle. However, the quantified demand could not stand on an uncertain factual basis because the number of taxable connections had not been finally determined. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh determination after inspection and a reasonable opportunity to the taxpayer, with liability and consequential tax payable to be recalculated on a definite factual record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:11:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 442 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172576</link>
      <description>Broadly defined &quot;admission&quot; and &quot;payment for admission&quot; under the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 were treated as covering cable television entertainment supplied to employees in their residences, even without physical entry to a place of entertainment, so the levy of entertainment tax was upheld in principle. However, the quantified demand could not stand on an uncertain factual basis because the number of taxable connections had not been finally determined. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh determination after inspection and a reasonable opportunity to the taxpayer, with liability and consequential tax payable to be recalculated on a definite factual record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>