<?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 (12) TMI 1238 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352969</link>
    <description>Sponsorship receipts for non-ticketed fashion shows and ticketed sports events were treated as not constituting &quot;payment for admission&quot; under the entertainment tax scheme, because they were paid for publicity, branding, or other commercial benefits rather than entry to entertainment. The retrospective insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 2(m) was described as an impermissible enlargement of the charging provision, not a mere clarification, and therefore could not sustain the levy. The text also notes that the Act lacked an effective charging and collection mechanism for taxing such receipts, and that prior participation or payment did not create estoppel or waiver against challenging the levy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 Dec 2017 08:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1238 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352969</link>
      <description>Sponsorship receipts for non-ticketed fashion shows and ticketed sports events were treated as not constituting &quot;payment for admission&quot; under the entertainment tax scheme, because they were paid for publicity, branding, or other commercial benefits rather than entry to entertainment. The retrospective insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 2(m) was described as an impermissible enlargement of the charging provision, not a mere clarification, and therefore could not sustain the levy. The text also notes that the Act lacked an effective charging and collection mechanism for taxing such receipts, and that prior participation or payment did not create estoppel or waiver against challenging the levy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>