CBDT notifies tolerance limit between ALP u/s 92C & actual price for AY 2020-2021 

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 >>

• Mutual Funds to value physical Gold and Silver by using the polled spot prices
• SC allows simultaneous CIRP proceedings against principal debtor & corporate guarantor
• Merely because sales were declared for only one month, same cannot be treated as bogus
• ITAT deleted addition as method of accounting had been accepted in earlier years
• Orders passed under Benami Act cannot be challenged under IBC 2016 – SC