<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1014 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337934</link>
    <description>Under the Rajasthan Tax on Luxuries (Hotel &amp; Lodging Houses) Act, 1990, pre-09.03.2007 definitions of &quot;business&quot;, &quot;hotel&quot;, &quot;luxuries provided in a hotel&quot; and &quot;turnover&quot; were construed to include hiring out a hotel lawn as activity ancillary to the hotelier&#039;s business. Receipts from lawn hire were therefore taxable as turnover from luxuries provided in the hotel, and the corresponding interest was upheld. However, penalty for alleged tax evasion was deleted because the assessee&#039;s understanding of the amendment&#039;s effect was bona fide and debatable, and deliberate evasion was not established. The result was that the substantive tax and interest demands stood, but penalty failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1014 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337934</link>
      <description>Under the Rajasthan Tax on Luxuries (Hotel &amp; Lodging Houses) Act, 1990, pre-09.03.2007 definitions of &quot;business&quot;, &quot;hotel&quot;, &quot;luxuries provided in a hotel&quot; and &quot;turnover&quot; were construed to include hiring out a hotel lawn as activity ancillary to the hotelier&#039;s business. Receipts from lawn hire were therefore taxable as turnover from luxuries provided in the hotel, and the corresponding interest was upheld. However, penalty for alleged tax evasion was deleted because the assessee&#039;s understanding of the amendment&#039;s effect was bona fide and debatable, and deliberate evasion was not established. The result was that the substantive tax and interest demands stood, but penalty failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>