<?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>2026 (4) TMI 283 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789214</link>
    <description>GST input tax credit on leasehold-right transfer was blocked because the inward supply was treated as part of construction of a manufacturing facility on the assessee&#039;s own account, with the capitalised cost forming part of the project cost. The term &quot;construction&quot; was read broadly to include re-construction, renovation, additions and alterations to the extent capitalised, so Section 17(5)(d) applied and credit was inadmissible. The Air Separation Plant also did not fall within the statutory definition of plant and machinery: it was an integrated industrial installation on leased land, not detachable equipment satisfying the annexation and object tests. The credit claim therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 08:53:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 283 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789214</link>
      <description>GST input tax credit on leasehold-right transfer was blocked because the inward supply was treated as part of construction of a manufacturing facility on the assessee&#039;s own account, with the capitalised cost forming part of the project cost. The term &quot;construction&quot; was read broadly to include re-construction, renovation, additions and alterations to the extent capitalised, so Section 17(5)(d) applied and credit was inadmissible. The Air Separation Plant also did not fall within the statutory definition of plant and machinery: it was an integrated industrial installation on leased land, not detachable equipment satisfying the annexation and object tests. The credit claim therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>