MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2016
[INCOME TAX]
S. O. 2425(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C of the Income-tax Act,1961 (43 of 1961), read with proviso to sub-rule (7) of rule 10CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Central Government hereby notifies that where the variation between the arm’s length price determined under section 92C and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one percent.of the latter in respect of wholesale trading and three percent.of the latter in all other cases, the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken shall be deemed to be the arm’s length price for Assessment Year 2016-2017.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this notification, “wholesale trading” means an international transaction or specified domestic transaction of trading in goods, which fulfils the following conditions, namely:-
(i) purchase cost of finished goods is eighty percent. or more of the total cost pertaining to such trading activities; and
(ii) average monthly closing inventory of such goods is ten percent. or less of sales pertaining to such trading activities.
[Notification No. 57/2016/F. No. 500/1/2014-APA-II]
SOBHAN KAR, Director
Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…
Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…
Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…
CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…
Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…
CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…