← All Phrases

“most appropriate method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C1,345 judgments

The decision most relied on for most appropriate method is CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (367 ITR 730), cited in 120 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on most appropriate method

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
13 Taxmann.com 82 · 2011 · High Court
43
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot disregard an assessee's decision to avail services from associated enterprises, even if the assessee has internal expertise, as the determination of necessity is the assessee's prerogative. The Transfer Pricing Officer's role is to determine the arm's length price, not the need for the service itself.

CIT v. EHPT India P Ltd.
350 ITR 41 · 2013 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The headcount method is an appropriate allocation key for indirect expenses between eligible and non-eligible units when it has been consistently accepted by revenue authorities and there is no just cause for abandoning it. Deviation from a consistently followed and accepted method can disturb or distort profits.

Mobis India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
38 Taxmann.com 231 · 2013 · ITAT
38
citing judgments

A working capital adjustment is unreliable if it is based on broad approximations, estimations, and assumptions, and the assessee fails to demonstrate how the adjustment was arrived at.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
29 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The 'bright line test' is not an appropriate method for determining the existence of an international transaction for calculating arm's length price. This ruling overrules prior special bench decisions on AMP expenses.

Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
389 ITR 469 · 2016 · High Court
35
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) or Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot dispute the application of the TNMM method if they have already accepted it as the most appropriate method for certain international transactions, especially when other transactions are intrinsically linked.

Skoda Auto India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, Aurangabad
30 SOT 319 · 2009 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

The Tribunal may allow adjustments for differences between the tested party and comparable companies to eliminate material differences, provided accurate and credible evidence is furnished.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. Matrix Cellular International Services (P.) Ltd.
90 Taxmann.com 54 · 2018 · High Court
25
citing judgments

The Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of a distributor who does not add significant value to the goods purchased.

Judgments citing most appropriate method

Spectris Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3742/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shriyogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3742/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Spectris Technologies P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, 201-B, Second Floor, Vs. Ward-9(1), Park Centra, Sector-30, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan No.Aagcs6654R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 92

business segment. 2 3.2 Rejecting the Resale Price Method adopted by the Appellant and instead adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions under Trading of spare parts (AMC) segment. 3.3 Not accepting comparable companies selected by the Appellant ... benchmarking the above international transactions, appellant prepared segmental accounts. For international transactions relating to Segment 2 i.e., Agency and Marketing Support Services the most appropriate method used was TNMM and PLI selected was OP/OC. As per reported benchmarking analysis the results of tested party as per segmental accounts

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Exxon Mobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1348/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 92C

submits that with respect to the benchmarking under manufacturing segment of import of base oils, assessee had taken CUP method as most appropriate method (MAM), however TPO given very specific reasons for not accepting the CUP method. As per ld. CIT DR, TPO observed that out of total 70 transactions ... submits that Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in detail and then reached to the conclusion that RPM is most appropriate method. Ld. AR further submits that in preceding year, i.e. in Assessment Year 2004-05, in remand proceeding, the TPO accepted the arm's length price computed

Corporate Worldwise Stay LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle -20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

ITA 5940/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92B

earlier Grounds, the DRP has erred in confirming the action of the assessment unit in applying the profit split method as the most appropriate method in the case of the appellant. 3.2 The appellant respectfully submits that on the facts of its case, the profit split method cannot be applied ... appellant also submits that the order of the TPO is silent on the reasons for applying the profit split method as the most appropriate method. The appellant submits that it is not permissible for the assessment unit to apply the said method in absence of the specific reasons for application

Marks and Spencer (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1937/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

proposed the following by referring to pages 94 to 116 of Appeal set which is a copy of TP order :-  rejected TNMM as most appropriate method opted by the assessee, disregarded economic analysis carried out by the assessee and applied an arbitrary Comparable Uncontrolled Price (‘CUP’)method;  rejected the corroborative ... proprietary marks’ is germane to and inextricably linked with the trading business of the Appellant, TNMM has been appropriately selected as the most appropriate method. B. Incorrect rejection of TNMM adopted by the Appellant 4. The Ld. TPO arbitrarily rejected the TNMM by alleging that the transaction of royalty cannot

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

labs, etc. For benchmarking the said international transaction of purchase of finished goods, the assessee adopted the Resale Price Method (“RPM) as the most appropriate method. By considering itself the tested party, the assessee identified the following five comparable companies with an arithmetic mean gross margin, i.e., gross profit ... assessee. Thus, it was submitted that this company is comparable to the assessee for benchmarking the international transaction by adopting RPM as the most appropriate method. In this regard, the learned AR submitted that this company was directed to be included as comparable by the Co-ordinate Bench

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

labs, etc. For benchmarking the said international transaction of purchase of finished goods, the assessee adopted the Resale Price Method (“RPM”) as the most appropriate method. By considering itself the tested party, the assessee identified the following five comparable companies with an arithmetic mean gross margin, i.e., gross profit ... assessee. Thus, it was submitted that this company is comparable to the assessee for benchmarking the international transaction by adopting RPM as the most appropriate method. In this regard, the learned AR submitted that ITAs No.1236/Mum/2016, 577/Mum/2017, 7393/Mum/2017 & 7294/Mum /2018

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

labs, etc. For benchmarking the said international transaction of purchase of finished goods, the assessee adopted the Resale Price Method (“RPM) as the most appropriate method. By considering itself the tested party, the assessee identified the following five comparable companies with an arithmetic mean gross margin, i.e., gross profit ... assessee. Thus, it was submitted that this company is comparable to the assessee for benchmarking the international transaction by adopting RPM as the most appropriate method. In this regard, the learned AR submitted that this company was directed to be included as comparable by the Co-ordinate Bench

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

labs, etc. For benchmarking the said international transaction of purchase of finished goods, the assessee adopted the Resale Price Method (“RPM”) as the most appropriate method. By considering itself the tested party, the assessee identified the following five comparable companies with an arithmetic mean gross margin, i.e., gross profit ... assessee. Thus, it was submitted that this company is comparable to the assessee for benchmarking the international transaction by adopting RPM as the most appropriate method. In this regard, the learned AR submitted that ITAs No.1236/Mum/2016, 577/Mum/2017, 7393/Mum/2017 & 7294/Mum /2018

ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Acuity Knowledge Centre(India) Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2334/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Mansa Ananthan, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 37Section 43B

services to its immediate holding company in an arrangement of Cost Plus 18% Markup. The assessee in the TP study adopted TNMM as most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction of Provision of services and under TNMM adopted PLI as OP/OC which was computed at 17.75%. The assessee considered itself

Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commission of Income Tax, Circle1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2153/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Mansa Ananthan, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 37Section 43B

services to its immediate holding company in an arrangement of Cost Plus 18% Markup. The assessee in the TP study adopted TNMM as most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction of Provision of services and under TNMM adopted PLI as OP/OC which was computed at 17.75%. The assessee considered itself

Schineler India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcitrg 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 724/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Schindler India Pvt Ltd Dcit Schindler House, Main Street, Range 15(3) (2) Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400076 (Pan: Aaecs1548J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal & Ms. Riddhi Maru, Cas Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2021-22/1040015716(1) Dated 22.02.2022 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2021-22/1039079646(1), Dated 25.01.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “Ground I. Legal Grounds

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal and Ms. Riddhi Maru, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

determination of arm's length price as prescribed under section 92C of the Act, read with rule 100 of the rules being the most appropriate method. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further

Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1492/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalluxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit, 7Th Floor, Dlf Building No.9, Circle-15(2), Tower-B, Phase-Iii, Dlf Cyber Vs. New Delhi. City, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana. Pan-Aabcl3871C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Adv., Ca Department By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Compliance To The Direction Given By Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Vide Order Dated 15.12.2014 For Asst. Year 2010-11. 2. In The Present Appeal, The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 26.05.2017 In Ita No.1492/Del/2015 Has Remand The Issue Of Tp Adjustment Towards Alleged Amp Expenses To The File Of Tpo To Decide Afresh With Certain Directions, However, Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Ground In Respect Of Tp Adjustment Made Towards International Transactions Of Import Of Finished Goods Remained Un-Adjudicated.

Section 143(3)Section 92C

action of Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO of rejecting the Resale Price Method ("RPM") applying Transaction Net Margin Method ("TNMM") as the Most appropriate Method ("MAM") under section 92C of the Act to determine ALP of impugned international transaction is completely arbitrary and calls for being reversed. 4.2 That ... Year 2009-10 in IT(TP)A No.1115/Del/2014 wherein vide order dated 06.05.2014, Co-ordinate Bench has held that “Resale Price Method” as most appropriate method (MAM). The Co-ordinate Bench further directed the TPO to adopt the ‘Resale Price Method’ as MAM and compute the arm length price

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cargil India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5786/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06 Acit, Circle5(2), Vs. M/S Cargil India Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi -110001 111 Rectangle–I Saket District Centre New Delhi Pan No. Aaacc3269J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely: (a) Comparable uncontrolled price method , by which ; (i) The price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled

Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 711/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Pin – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahcs9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)

rating of the associated enterprise. 6.5. The Ld. AO erred in calculating the ALP of the corporate guarantee fee using 'CUP as the most appropriate method and by applying the rates of SBI without any basis and without complying with the procedure laid down for computation of arm's length

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Ms Zyme Solution Private Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly the appeal of the ld. AO and the CO of the assessee are partly allowed,

ITA 1885/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Balusamy, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

international jurisprudence itself recognize that there cannot be an exact comparable to a given situation, especially with TNMM as the most appropriate method. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in demanding comparability standards that may itself defeat the purpose of law ITA No.1885 & CO 42/Bang/2024 Page

Ntt Data Global Delivery Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2062/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT

namely AE Segment and Non-AE Segment. The assessee has benchmarked the provision of SWD services to the AEs by adopting TNMM as most appropriate method. The PLI of the AE segment was computed at 15.79%. In the transfer pricing study, the assessee identified 26 comparable companies. The arithmetic mean

Ntt Data Global Delivery Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1720/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT

namely AE Segment and Non-AE Segment. The assessee has benchmarked the provision of SWD services to the AEs by adopting TNMM as most appropriate method. The PLI of the AE segment was computed at 15.79%. In the transfer pricing study, the assessee identified 26 comparable companies. The arithmetic mean

Spectris Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose with above observations

ITA 3563/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Spectris Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit Ltd., 201-B, Second Floor, New Delhi Park Centra, Sector -30 Gurgaon Pan No. Aagcs6654R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Priya Goel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per C.N. Prasad, Jm, This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, New Delhi Vide Order Dated 27.03.2014 For The A.Y. 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds :- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xx, New Delhi ("Cit(A)") Is Bad In Law.

Section 234BSection 92Section 92C

single business segment. 3.2 Rejecting the Resale Price Method adopted by the Appellant in favour of Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions under AMC segment. 3.3 Selecting inappropriate comparable set in application of the transfer pricing methodology adopted ... enclosed at pages 60 to 62 of Paper Book). For international transactions relating to Segment 1 i.e., Agency and Marketing Support Services the most appropriate method used was TNMM and PLI selected was OP/OC. As per reported benchmarking analysis the results of tested party as per segmental accounts

Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle I, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 702/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method in the case of electricity, without considering the fact that the TNMM method adopted by the appellant was the most appropriate method to determine ALP. 5. That the Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in disregarding the electricity rate of Rs. 6.92 per unit adopted ... Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method” in the case of electricity, without considering the fact that the TNMM method adopted by the appellant was the most appropriate method to determine ALP, because the electricity rate of Rs. 6.92 per unit adopted by the assessee for sales of electricity from the specified unit

Shri Sureshkumar Harjivanbhai Chandarana, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Circle - 2 (2) (1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 415/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Sureshkumar Harjivanbhai Chandarana Acit, Circle – 2(2)(1), Rajkot A-75, New Market Yard, Village-Bedi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Morbi, Highway, Rajkot- 360 003 Road, Rajkot –360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpc8536E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Durga Dutt, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2025 : 15/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeal Cit(A), Ahmedabad-13 Dated 06.10.2023 [In Short, “Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act, Vide Order Dated 19.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

However, during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has adopted TAMM (Transactional Net Margin Method). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appropriate method, as per the nature of transaction in the assessee`s case is the CUP method. The assessee has been adopting CUP method (comparable uncontrolled ... assessee is within ±5% of the ALP, then, no transfer pricing adjustment is required. 18. As far as the application of CUP, as most appropriate method, is concerned, there was no difference of opinion between the assessee and the TPO during the Page 10 of 11 ITA No. 415/Rjt/2023