<?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 (4) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341033</link>
    <description>The U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 fastens entertainment tax liability on the proprietor of a cable service control room or multi system operator, and that liability applies whether the tax is collected directly from subscribers or indirectly through an associate, franchise or agent. On the facts discussed, the absence of specific material showing that any connections were operated outside that statutory reach meant the challenge to liability failed. The subscription-rate issue, however, remained undecided because the appellate authority did not determine whether the correct monthly charge was Rs. 150 or Rs. 100, so that computation question required fresh consideration on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Apr 2017 07:04:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341033</link>
      <description>The U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 fastens entertainment tax liability on the proprietor of a cable service control room or multi system operator, and that liability applies whether the tax is collected directly from subscribers or indirectly through an associate, franchise or agent. On the facts discussed, the absence of specific material showing that any connections were operated outside that statutory reach meant the challenge to liability failed. The subscription-rate issue, however, remained undecided because the appellate authority did not determine whether the correct monthly charge was Rs. 150 or Rs. 100, so that computation question required fresh consideration on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>