<?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>2003 (11) TMI 48 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11282</link>
    <description>Luxury tax collected by a hotelier under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1981 was treated as part of the hotelier&#039;s trading receipts and assessable as business income. The statutory liability to pay the tax rested on the hotelier, even though collection from occupants was permitted, and the occupant was not directly liable to assessment or demand. The Act also treated the tax as payable by the proprietor even if not collected from customers. On that basis, the amount retained its character as business receipt, and the collection arrangement did not amount to diversion of income by overriding title or make the hotelier a mere collecting agent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50299" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 48 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11282</link>
      <description>Luxury tax collected by a hotelier under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1981 was treated as part of the hotelier&#039;s trading receipts and assessable as business income. The statutory liability to pay the tax rested on the hotelier, even though collection from occupants was permitted, and the occupant was not directly liable to assessment or demand. The Act also treated the tax as payable by the proprietor even if not collected from customers. On that basis, the amount retained its character as business receipt, and the collection arrangement did not amount to diversion of income by overriding title or make the hotelier a mere collecting agent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>