<?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>2021 (9) TMI 320 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411975</link>
    <description>Paragraph 2A of Notification No. 3/2019-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, was held to apply to a joint development agreement involving transfer of undivided land share and development rights to a promoter in exchange for constructed flats and monetary consideration. The levy arose on completion of construction under Notification No. 6/2019-Central Tax (Rate), and by that time the prescribed valuation mechanism governed the supply. The availability of actual construction cost did not displace the notified deeming method, which requires valuation by reference to the amount charged for similar apartments to independent buyers, less the prescribed land value. The transaction was therefore required to be valued under paragraph 2A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 320 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411975</link>
      <description>Paragraph 2A of Notification No. 3/2019-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, was held to apply to a joint development agreement involving transfer of undivided land share and development rights to a promoter in exchange for constructed flats and monetary consideration. The levy arose on completion of construction under Notification No. 6/2019-Central Tax (Rate), and by that time the prescribed valuation mechanism governed the supply. The availability of actual construction cost did not displace the notified deeming method, which requires valuation by reference to the amount charged for similar apartments to independent buyers, less the prescribed land value. The transaction was therefore required to be valued under paragraph 2A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>