<?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>2020 (7) TMI 353 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396684</link>
    <description>The authority held that the 99-year lease agreement between the applicant company and RLDA is not exempt from GST. The amount transferred as a security deposit was deemed the first installment of the lease premium and therefore subject to GST. Additionally, the amount deposited in February 2019 was not exempt from GST as it did not fall under the relevant notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 10:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 353 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396684</link>
      <description>The authority held that the 99-year lease agreement between the applicant company and RLDA is not exempt from GST. The amount transferred as a security deposit was deemed the first installment of the lease premium and therefore subject to GST. Additionally, the amount deposited in February 2019 was not exempt from GST as it did not fall under the relevant notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>