<?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 1769 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298182</link>
    <description>Entertainment duty under the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act is attracted only where persons are admitted for payment to the activity itself. The text explains that the statutory definitions of entertainment, pool-game and pool parlour, read with the charging and levy provisions, did not cover billiards tables confined to a members&#039; club. Because the facility was limited to members, their guests and service members, was not open to the public even on payment, and carried no separate charge for use of the tables, the required elements of public colour and benefit in money were not met. On that basis, the duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:21:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=658838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1769 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298182</link>
      <description>Entertainment duty under the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act is attracted only where persons are admitted for payment to the activity itself. The text explains that the statutory definitions of entertainment, pool-game and pool parlour, read with the charging and levy provisions, did not cover billiards tables confined to a members&#039; club. Because the facility was limited to members, their guests and service members, was not open to the public even on payment, and carried no separate charge for use of the tables, the required elements of public colour and benefit in money were not met. On that basis, the duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>