<?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>2024 (9) TMI 298 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758054</link>
    <description>A site-specific rotary parking system installed with specialised foundation and structural support was treated as a permanent civil structure forming part of the rented premises. Applying the statutory definition of plant and machinery, the AAAR held that the installation was not plant or machinery but an immovable property, because it was fixed to earth by foundation and structural support and became operational only after site assembly. The Authority further applied the permanency test and held that the system was an addition to the immovable property used for renting premises. Input tax credit was therefore blocked under Section 17(5)(d), notwithstanding the appellant&#039;s business use.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 21:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 298 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758054</link>
      <description>A site-specific rotary parking system installed with specialised foundation and structural support was treated as a permanent civil structure forming part of the rented premises. Applying the statutory definition of plant and machinery, the AAAR held that the installation was not plant or machinery but an immovable property, because it was fixed to earth by foundation and structural support and became operational only after site assembly. The Authority further applied the permanency test and held that the system was an addition to the immovable property used for renting premises. Input tax credit was therefore blocked under Section 17(5)(d), notwithstanding the appellant&#039;s business use.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>