<?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>Documents relating to Application for Amendment for additional palace of business</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=119659</link>
    <description>Application to add an additional place of business queried whether the department can require a fresh lease with new stamp duty when an existing notarized rent agreement already bears a valid stamp and tenure exceeds eleven months. Forum replies indicate that additional stamp payment should not be compelled and recommend escalation against refusal, while noting increased departmental scrutiny of place of business amendments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:10:15 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 15:33:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=802567" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Documents relating to Application for Amendment for additional palace of business</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=119659</link>
      <description>Application to add an additional place of business queried whether the department can require a fresh lease with new stamp duty when an existing notarized rent agreement already bears a valid stamp and tenure exceeds eleven months. Forum replies indicate that additional stamp payment should not be compelled and recommend escalation against refusal, while noting increased departmental scrutiny of place of business amendments.</description>
      <category>Discussion-Forum</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:10:15 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=119659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>