Live
- DEO suspends teacher accused of sexual assault
- PM ‘cursing’ Congress out of despair: Maharashtra Cong Chief
- Applications are invited for Junior Colleges Scheme District Scheduled Castes Development Officer Ramlal
- A nomination was filed on the second day for the Nagar Kurnool parliamentary seat
- SP Gaikwad inspected the Telangana Amarnath Saleswaram Jatara yatra arrangements
- Rahul Gandhi's decision to contest from Wayanad shows 'lack of confidence': BJP President Nadda
- IPL 2024: Delhi bowlers will go after all of SRH’s top-order batters, says head coach Ricky Ponting
- At Amroha rally, PM Modi sends out ‘meaningful’ message for Muslims and Hindus
- Tripura records highest 79.83 pc voter turnout in Northeast
- The government has to clear the confusion
Rationale behind tax exemption to Gautamiputra Sathakarni, Rudrama Devi questioned
The High Court at Hyderabad on Tuesday issued notices to both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana State governments as also to cine hero Balakrishna and producers and exhibitors of Gautamiputra Sathakarni and Rudrama Devi movies to explain the rationale behind granting tax exemption, especially when the benefit of such exemption was not being passed on to the moviegoers.
The High Court at Hyderabad on Tuesday issued notices to both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana State governments as also to cine hero Balakrishna and producers and exhibitors of Gautamiputra Sathakarni and Rudrama Devi movies to explain the rationale behind granting tax exemption, especially when the benefit of such exemption was not being passed on to the moviegoers.
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Shameem Akhter was dealing with a PIL petition moved by ‘Cine Preskhakula Sangham’ questioning such tax exemption to these movies.
The counsel for the petitioner G L Narasimha Rao informed the bench that the benefits of such tax exemption were not being passed on to the moviegoers and it was the exhibitors and cinema hall owners who were pocketing the benefits. The bench issued notices and directed the respondents to file counter affidavits within two weeks and adjourned the matter.
