Simplify GST learning with memory techniques. Join live sessions, master CGST sections, and retain knowledge effortlessly. Register now for practical GST mastery!
The construction services used for construction of workers’ quarters within the factory premises, does not fall within the ambit of input services as defined in rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and consequently Applicant can not avail of the credit of such construction services in terms of rule 3 of the mentioned rules.
Please find attached herewith Service Tax Forms in Excel, Word and PDF format. We have uploaded all the forms related to service tax i.e. related to Service Tax Registration, Service tax Return Filing, Service Tax Payment Challan as well as form for Appeal to Appellate Tribunal. Just click on the link of the form you want to download.
The Supreme Court has ruled that provisioning for bad debt cannot be considered for deduction against the taxable income & Provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added to the “book profits” for purposes of section 115JA because they merely represent the diminution in the value of an asset and are not a provision for an unascertained liability.
The proviso to s. 92C (2) consists of two limbs. Under the first limb, where, through the Most Appropriate Method, more than one price is determined, the arithmetic mean of such price has to be taken to be the Arm’s Length Price in relation to the international transaction. The second limb gives “an option” to the taxpayer to take Arm’s Length Price which may vary from the arithmetic mean by an amount not exceeding 5% of such arithmetic mean. This option is applicable even to cases where the taxpayer intends to challenge the Arm’s Length Price taken as arithmetic mean and determined through the Most Appropriate Method. The argument of the Revenue that where the difference is much more than 5%, then the taxpayer cannot have the benefit of the said provision, particularly where the taxpayer has not accepted such arithmetic mean, is not correct. Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
