<?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>2025 (2) TMI 460 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765914</link>
    <description>An upfront lease premium for a long-term lease of land for a proposed commercial office complex did not satisfy the conditions of entry 41 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). Exemption required, among other things, use of the plot for industrial or financial business purposes and a lessor meeting the specified Government ownership condition. The proposed use was treated as commercial, not industrial, and the asserted financial activity was only internal corporate record-keeping, not financial services or financial business. Audit and administrative control were held insufficient to prove the required 20% or more Government ownership. The lease premium was therefore held taxable and not exempt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 14:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=796991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 460 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765914</link>
      <description>An upfront lease premium for a long-term lease of land for a proposed commercial office complex did not satisfy the conditions of entry 41 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). Exemption required, among other things, use of the plot for industrial or financial business purposes and a lessor meeting the specified Government ownership condition. The proposed use was treated as commercial, not industrial, and the asserted financial activity was only internal corporate record-keeping, not financial services or financial business. Audit and administrative control were held insufficient to prove the required 20% or more Government ownership. The lease premium was therefore held taxable and not exempt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>