Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

A public interest litigation (<keyword id="19957723" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="PIL" source="keywords">PIL</keyword>) has been filed in the <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Bombay High Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Bombay High Court">Bombay High Court</keyword>, urging the establishment of stringent guidelines to curb <keyword id="21811854" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="black-marketing" source="keywords">black marketing</keyword> and <keyword id="23311384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="ticket-scalping" source="keywords">ticket scalping</keyword> for major events. The PIL comes in the wake of widespread concerns over alleged irregularities during the online sale of tickets for the British band Coldplay’s upcoming concert in Navi Mumbai, scheduled for January 2025. Filed by advocate Amit Vyas, the PIL highlights the growing menace of ticket scalping and black marketing at large-scale events, including concerts, live shows, and sports matches. The plea calls for a thorough investigation into illegal ticket sales and the manipulation of online ticketing platforms, with specific reference to Coldplay's highly anticipated concert. The plea was mentioned on Monday for urgent hearing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice D. K. Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar. Noting that a police inquiry into the matter was already underway, the court adjourned the hearing to November, after the Diwali vacation. <h2>Allegations of <keyword id="23627270" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="ticketing-irregularities" source="keywords">ticketing irregularities</keyword></h2>The PIL specifically alleges foul play during last month’s sale of tickets for Coldplay's concert on the popular online ticketing platform, <keyword id="20215809" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BookMyShow" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BookMyShow" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="BookMyShow">BookMyShow</keyword>. According to the petition, many potential buyers were locked out of the website within minutes of the ticket sales opening, only to discover that the tickets had been sold out. Shortly thereafter, these same tickets appeared on secondary platforms at exorbitant prices, fueling suspicions of deliberate manipulation. Vyas, in his submission, noted that secondary websites were still selling tickets at inflated rates. He argued that this exploitative practice deprived fans of their right to fair access to entertainment, violating the <keyword id="20003683" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="consumer-protection" source="keywords">Consumer Protection</keyword> (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, which mandate fair and non-deceptive practices by e-commerce entities. The PIL underscored that this problem extends beyond the <keyword id="22044624" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Coldplay-concert" source="keywords">Coldplay concert</keyword>, pointing to similar issues during other major events, including the Indian Premier League (IPL) matches, the 2023 Cricket World Cup, and concerts of global artists like <keyword id="19897184" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="taylor-swift" source="keywords">Taylor Swift</keyword> and Diljit Dosanjh. In each case, fans were exploited through black market ticket sales, with prices soaring well above their official rates. According to Vyas, there is an urgent need for the government and judicial system to intervene, as ticketing platforms and event organisers are either complicit or failing to regulate secondary market sales effectively. <h2>Call for stricter guidelines</h2>The plea calls for the Bombay High Court to lay down stringent guidelines to prevent the black marketing and touting of event tickets. Vyas has asked for a framework that would ensure transparency and fairness in <keyword id="23627269" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="online-ticket-sales" source="keywords">online ticket sales</keyword> and reduce the exploitation of fans. The PIL emphasises that the lack of proper regulations in India’s ticketing sector has allowed platforms like BookMyShow to bypass rules, leaving consumers vulnerable to deceptive practices. It urges the court to consider the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, as the basis for implementing stricter regulatory measures in the ticketing industry. <h2>Ongoing police investigation</h2>Following last month’s irregularities, Vyas lodged a police complaint with the Economic Offences Wing of the Mumbai Police, which is currently conducting an inquiry. The PIL has highlighted the need for a more immediate judicial intervention to prevent further exploitation in upcoming events. As the Coldplay concert approaches, the spotlight remains on the High Court’s response to this plea and whether it will pave the way for reforms that will bring much-needed transparency and accountability to India’s ticketing industry. The court is expected to hear the matter again in November. (With inputs from agencies)

Coldplay concert chaos aftermath: PIL filed in Bombay HC to demand stricter controls over online ticket sales

Actor <keyword id="19915080" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Shilpa-Shetty" source="keywords">Shilpa Shetty</keyword> and her businessman husband <keyword id="19895826" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Raj-Kundra" source="keywords">Raj Kundra</keyword> have moved the <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Bombay High Court" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Bombay High Court">Bombay High Court</keyword> challenging ED's notices directing them to vacate their house in Mumbai's <keyword id="19933318" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Juhu" source="keywords">Juhu</keyword> area and a farmhouse in Pune in connection with a money-laundering case. The pleas came up for hearing on Wednesday before a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan. The court issued notice to the <keyword id="19895344" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Enforcement-Directorate" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Enforcement Directorate" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Enforcement Directorate">Enforcement Directorate</keyword> (ED) and posted the matter for hearing on Thursday. Their petitions challenge ED notices dated September 27 issued to Shetty and Kundra directing them to evict their residential premises here and a farmhouse in Pune within ten days in connection with a money-laundering case linked to an alleged <keyword id="23486542" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bitcoin-fraud" source="keywords">Bitcoin fraud</keyword>. The couple's advocate Prashant Patil said that Shetty and Kundra received the <keyword id="20675198" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="eviction-notices" source="keywords">eviction notices</keyword> only on October 3. He termed the notices arbitrary and illegal and sought them to be quashed. According to the pleas, there is no grave urgency for the petitioners to vacate their premises and that the issuance of such eviction notices was uncalled for. "The petitioners are also seeking relief on humanitarian grounds as the premise in question is their residential premise in which they have been staying with their family of six members for almost two decades," the petitions said. The pleas also sought HC to stay the effect of the eviction notices. As per the pleas, the ED had in 2018 lodged a complaint against one <keyword id="21346793" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="amit-bhardwaj" source="keywords">Amit Bhardwaj</keyword> and others for an alleged Bitcoin fraud and on charges of <keyword id="19899231" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="money-laundering" source="keywords">money laundering</keyword>. Both Shetty and her husband have not been named as accused in the case. The ED, during its probe, had summoned Kundra for questioning on several occasions. Kundra had appeared before the agency after each summons, the pleas said. In April 2024, Shetty and Kundra received a notice based on an order passed by the ED provisionally attaching their assets including their residential premise in Juhu that had been purchased by Kundra's father in 2009. Both Shetty and Kundra submitted their response to the notice. "However, in contravention to the provisions of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the provisional attachment order on September 18, 2024. This order clearly states that the attachment is confirmed only till the conclusion of trial and is subject to its outcome," the pleas said. "The petitioners (Shetty and Kundra) on October 3 received two notices dated September 27, 2024, directing them to vacate their residential premises and the farmhouse," the petitions said. The petitions said no eviction order/notice can be issued prior to conviction. The pleas added that their residential premise has no connection with the scheduled offence or any proceeds of crime. The petitions further claimed that Kundra had absolutely no connection with the alleged fraud.

Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra's money laundering case takes new turn as they challenge the ED's eviction notices

<keyword id="19941210" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Kangana-Ranaut" source="keywords">Kangana Ranaut</keyword>’s much-anticipated film Emergency, a biographical drama centered on former Prime Minister <keyword id="19913949" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indira-Gandhi" source="keywords">Indira Gandhi</keyword>, has been delayed due to a certification battle with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Initially slated for a September 6 release, the film has faced hurdles as the CBFC's revising committee suggested certain cuts before issuing a certificate. The <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Bombay High Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Bombay High Court">Bombay High Court</keyword> is now involved, with further hearings scheduled, raising questions about when the film will finally hit theatres. <h2>The battle for certification</h2>On Thursday, the CBFC told the Bombay High Court that a certificate would be issued to Emergency only if the recommended cuts were made. Ranaut, who directed, co-produced, and stars as Indira Gandhi in the film, had accused the CBFC of intentionally delaying the film's release by withholding certification. She suggested that the delay was politically motivated, especially given the upcoming elections in states like Haryana. The film's co-producer, <keyword id="20068359" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Zee-Entertainment" source="keywords">Zee Entertainment</keyword> Enterprises, took the matter to court, seeking a directive for the CBFC to issue the required certificate. The division bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla expressed frustration with the CBFC’s indecision. In a previous hearing, the court had remarked that the censor board cannot sit on a fence and has to take its decision one way or the other as it would otherwise amount to curtailing the freedom of speech and expression. In response to the court’s directive, CBFC’s counsel Abhinav Chandrachud explained, “The committee has suggested some cuts before a certificate can be issued and the movie can be released.” Senior counsel Sharan Jagtiani, representing Zee Entertainment, requested more time to decide whether these cuts could be accepted, with the court now awaiting a final decision in the next hearing scheduled for September 30. The delay in certification stems partly from objections raised by some <keyword id="23262146" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sikh-organisations" source="keywords">Sikh organisations</keyword>, including the Shiromani Akali Dal, accusing the film of misrepresenting their community and historical facts. This controversy has only added to the uncertainty surrounding the film’s release, as sensitive portrayals of political and historical events often attract close scrutiny in India. <h2><keyword id="23323607" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="political-motivations" source="keywords">Political motivations</keyword></h2>The controversy has led to speculation about political motivations, with Zee Entertainment alleging that the certificate was being withheld due to the upcoming elections in Haryana. This claim has raised eyebrows, given that Kangana Ranaut has been a vocal supporter of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and is herself a BJP MP. The court even wondered aloud why the ruling party would take issue with the film. Emergency was expected to be a major release, particularly due to its portrayal of one of the most significant and controversial periods in Indian political history — the 1975-1977 Emergency imposed by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. However, the film’s release is now dependent on the outcome of the ongoing court proceedings and whether Kangana Ranaut and Zee Entertainment are willing to comply with the CBFC’s suggested edits. The CBFC’s recommended cuts have not been publicly disclosed, leaving many wondering what specific elements of the film are in dispute. With the next court hearing scheduled for September 30, it remains to be seen whether Emergency will make its way to theatres soon or face further delays. (With inputs from PTI)

What will it take for Kangana Ranaut’s 'Emergency' to finally hit theatres?

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday said it has ordered listing of a plea challenging the verdict of the <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords">Bombay High Court</keyword> which had upheld a decision of a Mumbai college to impose a ban on wearing of 'hijab', 'burqa' and 'naqab' inside the campus. The high court had on June 26 refused to interfere with the decision of the <keyword id="22185170" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="chembur-trombay-education" source="keywords">Chembur Trombay Education</keyword> Society's N G Acharya and <keyword id="22271323" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="d-k-marathe-college" source="keywords">D K Marathe College</keyword> imposing the ban, saying such rules do not violate students' <keyword id="20068423" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="fundamental-rights" source="keywords">fundamental rights</keyword>. It had said a <keyword id="42035" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="dress-code" source="Orion">dress code</keyword> is meant to maintain discipline which is part of the college's fundamental right to "establish and administer an educational institution". Taking note of submission seeking urgent listing of the appeal, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said it has already assigned a bench for the matter and that it would be listed soon. Lawyer Abiha Zaidi, appearing for petitioners, including Zainab Abdul Qayyum, sought urgent hearing saying the unit tests in the college are likely to commence on Wednesday. The top court is yet to conclusively decide the legality of such diktats issued by educational institutions. A two-judge bench of the top court, on October 13, 2022, had delivered opposing verdicts in the hijab controversy emanating from Karnataka. The then BJP-led state government had imposed a ban on wearing the Islamic head covering in schools there. While Justice Hemant Gupta, since retired, had dismissed the appeals challenging the judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to lift the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia had held there shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state. The present controversy stems from the decision of a Mumbai college. The Bombay High Court trashed the plea against the ban and said the dress code was applicable to all students irrespective of religion or caste. The students, who were in the second and third year of the science degree course, had moved the high court, challenging a directive issued by the college imposing a dress code under which students cannot wear a hijab, naqab, burka, stoles, caps and badges on the premises. The students had claimed it was against their fundamental right to practice religion, the right to privacy and right to choice. The college's action was "arbitrary, unreasonable, bad-in-law and perverse", the plea had said. The high court, however, had said it could not see how the prescription of dress code by the college violated Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 25 (freedom to practice religion) of the Constitution. "In our view, the dress code as prescribed cannot be held to violate the petitioners' rights claimed under Article 19(1) (a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India," the HC had said. The high court had also refused to accept the petitioners' contention that wearing a hijab, naqab and burqa was an essential practice of their religion. "Except for stating that the same constitutes an essential religious practice on the basis of the English translation of Kanz-ul-Iman and Suman Abu Dawud, there is no material placed to uphold the petitioners' contention that donning of hijab and naqab is an essential religious practice. The contention in that regard, therefore, fails," the HC had said. Prescribing a dress code should be seen as an "exercise towards maintaining discipline", and the right to do so flows from the fundamental right to establish and administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession or run trade/business) and Article 26 of the Constitution, the HC had said. The dress code was mandatory only within the college premises and the petitioners' freedom of choice and expression was not otherwise affected, it had said.

Supreme Court to hear plea of students against Bombay HC verdict upholding ban on hijab, burqa in college

<keyword id="19956322" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BharatPe" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BharatPe" meta.hostid="83" meta.entityid="BharatPe">BharatPe</keyword> Group and <keyword id="19993869" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="PhonePe" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="PhonePe" meta.hostid="83" meta.entityid="PhonePe">PhonePe</keyword> Group have amicably settled all long-standing legal disputes pertaining to the use of the trademark with the suffix 'Pe', a joint statement read. Both companies had been involved in long-drawn legal disputes across multiple courts, over the past five years. "The settlement will put an end to all open judicial proceedings," the joint statement dated May 26 read. As a next step, they have already taken steps to withdraw all oppositions against each other in the trademark registry which will help them to proceed with the registration of their respective marks. Further, both organizations will undertake other necessary steps to comply with the obligations under the settlement agreement in respect of all cases before the <keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords">Delhi High Court</keyword> and <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords">Bombay High Court</keyword>, the statement said. <keyword id="19956324" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rajnish-kumar" source="keywords">Rajnish Kumar</keyword>, Chairman of the Board, of BharatPe, said, "This is a positive development for the industry. I appreciate the maturity and professionalism shown by the Management of both sides, working closely to resolve all outstanding legal issues and moving ahead to focus their energy and resources in building robust digital payment ecosystems.'' Sameer Nigam, Founder and CEO of PhonePe, said, ''I am glad that we have reached an amicable resolution in this matter. This outcome will benefit both companies to move forward and focus our collective energy on growing the Indian fintech industry as a whole. I would like to thank Mr Rajnish Kumar and his team for working with us to get to this positive outcome." BharatPe, the brand name of Resilient Innovations Pvt Ltd, was founded in 2018. Currently with a registered network of over 1.3 crore merchants across 450+ cities, the company is one of the leading players in UPI offline transactions, processing 370 million+ UPI transactions per month. PhonePe Group is also India's leading fintech company. Its flagship product, the PhonePe digital payments app, was launched in August 2016. In seven years, the company has scaled rapidly to become India's leading consumer payments app with 535+ million registered users and a digital payments acceptance network of 39+ million merchants. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/poco-f6-vs-realme-gt-6t-which-mid-range-smartphone-should-you-buy/slidelist/110388110.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/poco-f6-vs-realme-gt-6t-which-mid-range-smartphone-should-you-buy/slidelist/110388110.cms" target="_blank">Poco F6 vs Realme GT 6T – which mid-range smartphone should you buy?</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/realme-gt-6t-vs-motorola-edge-50-pro-price-specs-and-features-compared/slidelist/110366047.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/webstories/realme-gt-6t-vs-motorola-edge-50-pro-price-specs-and-features-compared/slidelist/110366047.cms" target="_blank">Realme GT 6T vs Motorola Edge 50 Pro – price, specs and features compared</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/indias-wearable-shipments-rise-by-2-1-in-q1-2024-average-price-declines/articleshow/110354913.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/indias-wearable-shipments-rise-by-2-1-in-q1-2024-average-price-declines/articleshow/110354913.cms" target="_blank">India’s wearable shipments rise by 2.1% in Q1 2024, average price declines</a>

BharatPe and PhonePe amicably settle all trademark disputes over 'Pe' suffix

A sperm or <keyword id="22773682" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="egg-donor" source="keywords">egg donor</keyword> has no legal right on the child, and cannot claim to be its <keyword id="22773683" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="biological-parent" source="keywords">biological parent</keyword>, the Bombay <keyword id="19900812" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="high-court" source="keywords">High Court</keyword> held on Tuesday, while allowing a 42-year-old woman visitation rights to her five-year-old twin daughters. The woman, in her plea, said her daughters, born via <keyword id="20302787" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="surrogacy" source="keywords">surrogacy</keyword>, were living with her husband and younger sister, who was the egg donor. The petitioner's husband had claimed since his sister-in-law was the egg donor, she had a legitimate right to be called a biological parent of the twins, and that his wife had no right over them. A single bench of Justice Milind Jadhav, however, refused to accept this contention, citing that though the petitioner's younger sister was the egg donor, she has no legitimate right to claim that she is a biological parent of the twins. The court said the role of the younger sister is that of an egg donor, rather, a voluntary donor, and at the most, she may qualify to be a genetic mother and nothing more. An advocate appointed to assist the court in the matter informed it that since the estranged couple's surrogacy agreement took place in 2018, when the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 had not come into force, the guidelines issued by the <keyword id="19914690" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Council-of-Medical-Research" source="keywords">Indian Council of Medical Research</keyword> (ICMR) in 2005 would regulate the agreement. As per a rule of the guidelines, the donor and the surrogate mother have to relinquish all parental rights, the court noted, adding that in the present case, the twins would be the daughters of the petitioner and her husband. "Under the guideline, it is clearly stated that the sperm/oocyte (egg) donor shall not have parental rights or duties in relation to the child and in that view of the matter, the younger sister of the petitioner can have no right whatsoever to intervene and claim to be the biological mother of the twin daughters," the high court said. As per the plea, the couple could not conceive naturally, and the petitioner's sister volunteered to donate her eggs. In December 2018, the babies were conceived by a surrogate woman and the twin girls were born in August 2019. In April 2019, the sister and her family met with a road accident, and her husband and daughter were killed. The petitioner lived with her husband and twin daughters from August 2019 to March 2021. Following a marital discord in March 2021, the husband moved into another flat with the children without informing his wife. The man claimed that his wife's sister (the egg donor) had been depressed after the road accident and started living with him to take care of the twins. The petitioner filed a police complaint and an application before a local court, seeking interim visitation rights to her daughters. The local court rejected her application in September 2023, following which she approached the high court. The wife said her sister had only donated her eggs and was not the surrogate mother, and hence, she had no legal right or role in the lives of the twins. The high court, in its order, noted that the surrogacy agreement of 2018 between the intending parents, the surrogate mother and the doctor is signed by the petitioner, her husband and the doctor. "It is seen that the petitioner (wife) and Respondent No. 1 (husband) are recognised as the intending parents. At least to a naked eye, there is no ambiguity whatsoever while observing and even concluding that it is the petitioner along with Respondent No. 1 who signed the surrogacy agreement as intending parents," it said. Justice Jadhav held that the lower court order denying visitation rights to the wife was passed without proper application of mind and is unsustainable and quashed it. The court directed the husband to give physical access and visitation rights of the twins to the petitioner for three hours every weekend.

Sperm or egg donor has no legal right on child, can't claim to be biological parent, says high court

The <keyword id="48485" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="bombay-high-court" source="Orion">Bombay High Court</keyword> on Thursday refused relief to actor <keyword id="6357860" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="anushka-sharma" source="Orion">Anushka Sharma</keyword> and disposed of her petitions challenging orders passed by the state Sales Tax department demanding tax for assessment years between 2012 to 2016 under the <keyword id="16042124" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="maharashtra-value-added-tax-act" source="Orion">Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act</keyword>. A division bench of <keyword id="9774337" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="justices-nitin-jamdar" source="Orion">Justices Nitin Jamdar</keyword> and <keyword id="9265938" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="abhay-ahuja" source="Orion">Abhay Ahuja</keyword> said the actor had the alternate remedy of filing appeal against the orders under provisions of <keyword id="601688" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="maharashtra-value-added-tax" source="Orion">Maharashtra Value Added Tax</keyword> (MVAT) Act. <keyword id="445" type="General" weightage="90" keywordseo="sharma" source="Orion">Sharma</keyword> had filed four petitions challenging four orders passed by the Sales Tax department levying tax for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 under the Act. "Why should we entertain the petitions when the petitioner (Sharma) has a full fledged remedy of appeal available under the Act? Statutory provision is available," the bench said. The court, while disposing of Sharma's petitions, directed her to file appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) within a period of four weeks. Under the Act, when a person files appeal, he or she will have to deposit 10 per cent of the tax amount levied by the department. As per the Sales Tax department, Sharma was the "first owner of copyrights" on her performances at awards functions or stage shows, and, therefore, liable to pay sales tax when she received income from them. As she "transferred" this <keyword id="15456337" type="TOPIC" weightage="60" keywordseo="Copyright" source="TOPIC" sourcekeytype="business,investopedia" meta.keywordsubtype="null" meta.msid="92982198" meta.seopath="c/copyright" meta.entityname="Copyright" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="copyright">copyright</keyword> to the producers of such events for a fee, it was akin to a sale, the Sales Tax department contended. Sharma's contention is an actor who performs in a film, advertisement or a stage/TV show cannot be called a creator or producer, and, hence, she or he does not own a copyright on the same. The court said all the issues raised by Sharma in her petitions can be decided by the appellate authority. "The authority will go into all the issues and conduct a detailed inquiry. If we sit to decide this, then every <keyword id="16987535" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mvat-act" source="Orion">MVAT Act</keyword> matter will come here," the court said. The department had sought for the petitions to be dismissed and cost be imposed on Sharma as she had an alternate remedy available under the MVAT Act. According to Sharma's petitions, during the concerned period she performed in films and at award ceremonies as part of a tri-party agreement with her agent <keyword id="15841112" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="yashraj-films-pvt-ltd" source="Orion">Yashraj Films Pvt Ltd</keyword> and producers/event organisers. The assessing officer levied sales tax not on film consideration but on product endorsements and anchoring at award functions, holding that Sharma had transferred her performer's rights, her petitions said. For Assessment Year 2012-13, the sales tax demand, inclusive of interest, was Rs 1.2 crore on Rs 12.3 crore consideration and for 2013-14, it was Rs 1.6 crore on a consideration of Rs 17 crore. The sales tax department passed the orders between 2021 and 2022. Sharma is known for her roles in films like "PK", "Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi", "Sultan" and "Zero", among others. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/spicejet-cmd-ajay-singh-takes-over-as-the-president-of-industry-body-assocham/articleshow/99115277.cms">SpiceJet CMD Ajay Singh takes over as the president of industry body Assocham</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/news/sebi-directs-top-100-listed-firms-to-clarify-market-rumours-from-oct-1/articleshow/99115234.cms">SEBI directs top 100 listed firms to clarify market rumours from Oct 1</a>

You Searched For "Bombay high court" and got 7 results

Coldplay concert chaos aftermath: PIL filed in Bombay HC to demand stricter controls over online ticket sales

BI India Bureau

Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra's money laundering case takes new turn as they challenge the ED's eviction notices

PTI

What will it take for Kangana Ranaut’s 'Emergency' to finally hit theatres?

Ankush Banerjee

Supreme Court to hear plea of students against Bombay HC verdict upholding ban on hijab, burqa in college

PTI

BharatPe and PhonePe amicably settle all trademark disputes over 'Pe' suffix

ANI

Sperm or egg donor has no legal right on child, can't claim to be biological parent, says high court

PTI

Anushka Sharma gets no relief from Bombay HC on pleas against sales tax demand

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides