Live
- Minister Nara Lokesh Pays Emotional Tribute to Late Nara Rammurthy Naidu
- Bihar: Deceased patient's eye missing, RJD condemns incident at Nalanda Medical College
- Rammurthy Naidu's Last Rites Held in Naravari Palli
- PM Modi receives ceremonial welcome in Abuja, begins bilateral talks with Nigerian President Tinubu
- Goods traffic doubles on the new railway freight corridors
- BGT 2024-25: I’d like to see him make one more Test ton in Australia, says Johnso
- Harassment due to ED raids forced Kailash Gehlot to quit, hints Kejriwal
- Kailash Gehlot exit: BJP goes on the offensive against 'corrupt' AAP govt
- PM Modi pays homage to ‘the great’ Balasaheb Thackeray on his death anniversary
- One who cares for Delhi will not stay with gang of robbers: Sachdeva on Gahlot's resignation
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.
