CBDT notifies tolerance/variation limit between arm’s length price u/s 92C and the actual price for international/specified domestic transaction for AY 2020-2021
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
Notification No. 83/2020
New Delhi, the 19th October, 2020
[INCOME-TAX]
S.O. 3660(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) (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act‟), 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 of the said Act and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one per cent. of the latter in respect of whole sale trading and three per cent. 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 2020-2021.
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 per cent. or more of the total cost pertaining to such trading activities; and
(ii) average monthly closing inventory of such goods is ten per cent. or less of sales pertaining to such trading activities.
[F. No. 500/1/2014-APA-II]
RUCHIKA SHARMA, Under Secy
Download Notification Click Here >>
- Sale of flats in a real estate project held capital gains considering intention of assessee
- Interest liability recognised by journal entries at the close of year, can’t be termed as fictitious – ITAT
- Cash deposits in bank which were immediately transferred to other accounts – addition deleted
- ITAT disallows 6% for alleged bogus purchases being appropriate
- CBDT can’t restrict power of CIT u/s 119(2)(b) to condone delay beyond six years – High Court
