<?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>1986 (8) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40087</link>
    <description>Under the Sixth Schedule, an autonomous district council may levy only the taxes expressly authorised, and a levy on timber removed from private forests cannot be treated as a tax on land or forest produce where it bears no relation to the land&#039;s extent, nature, or potentiality. A levy may also operate as a fee only if it has the character of quid pro quo for services rendered, but no valid fee was shown here because there was no material on the council&#039;s expenses or any link between the amount collected and the services provided. The impugned notification was therefore not sustainable as either tax or fee, though a proper fee under paragraph 3 was not excluded in principle.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (8) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40087</link>
      <description>Under the Sixth Schedule, an autonomous district council may levy only the taxes expressly authorised, and a levy on timber removed from private forests cannot be treated as a tax on land or forest produce where it bears no relation to the land&#039;s extent, nature, or potentiality. A levy may also operate as a fee only if it has the character of quid pro quo for services rendered, but no valid fee was shown here because there was no material on the council&#039;s expenses or any link between the amount collected and the services provided. The impugned notification was therefore not sustainable as either tax or fee, though a proper fee under paragraph 3 was not excluded in principle.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>