<?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 279 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789210</link>
    <description>Contribution of developed leasehold land, a constructed hotel project and associated infrastructure to an LLP in exchange for partnership interest and profit-sharing rights was treated as a taxable supply of service under GST. The AAR reasoned that the transfer involved valuable rights between distinct taxable persons, and that non-monetary benefits received in return constituted consideration. Looking to the substance of the arrangement, it characterised the transaction as a structured commercial exploitation model rather than a mere capital contribution. Schedule III was found inapplicable, while Schedule II was applied to treat the activity as a supply of service, making GST leviable.</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=894949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 279 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789210</link>
      <description>Contribution of developed leasehold land, a constructed hotel project and associated infrastructure to an LLP in exchange for partnership interest and profit-sharing rights was treated as a taxable supply of service under GST. The AAR reasoned that the transfer involved valuable rights between distinct taxable persons, and that non-monetary benefits received in return constituted consideration. Looking to the substance of the arrangement, it characterised the transaction as a structured commercial exploitation model rather than a mere capital contribution. Schedule III was found inapplicable, while Schedule II was applied to treat the activity as a supply of service, making GST leviable.</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=789210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>