← All Phrases

“comparable uncontrolled price method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C188 judgments

The decision most relied on for comparable uncontrolled price method is Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (44 SOT 391), cited in 39 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on comparable uncontrolled price method

Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
44 SOT 391 · 2011 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is preferred over indirect methods for determining the arm's length price in transfer pricing matters, especially for royalty payments.

Asstt. CIT v. MSS India (P.) Ltd.
32 SOT 132 · 2009 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is preferred when comparable transactions with third parties are available to determine if transfer prices are at arm's length. Transactional profit methods are considered methods of last resort.

CIT v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd.
80 Taxmann.com 337 · 2017 · High Court
26
citing judgments

A transfer pricing adjustment is not sustainable if the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has not followed any of the prescribed methods for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). Specifically, setting the ALP to Nil without adhering to the methods under section 92C is impermissible.

CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.
293 ITR 464 · 2007 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Expenditure by way of royalty is an allowable revenue deduction if it is for a limited license to use know-how, where the assessee is not vested with proprietary rights. This is especially true if the payment falls within a reasonable range based on comparable transactions.

ACIT v. MSS India (P) Ltd.
123 TTJ 657 · 2009 · ITAT
16
citing judgments

A transfer pricing officer (TPO) must justify preferring one method over another, such as the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) over the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, by demonstrating fallacies in the application of the preferred standard method.

Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. Oy. CIT
39 SOT 93 · 2010 · ITAT
16
citing judgments

The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is the most preferred method for determining arm's length price in international transactions, but it requires a high degree of comparability. If comparables are not identical, the CUP method may not be applicable unless another method is proven to be more reliable in the specific fact situation.

Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. DCIT
134 Taxmann.com 177 · 2022 · Reported
13
citing judgments

The internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is appropriate for benchmarking the transfer price of power supplied by an eligible unit to a non-eligible unit, where the power is consumed captively by the manufacturing unit.

Intervet India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
39 SOT 59 · 2010 · ITAT
13
citing judgments

The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is preferred for determining the arm's length price (ALP) of an international transaction when it can be reasonably applied, unless another method is demonstrably more reliable for the specific facts. Adjustments for differences between comparable transactions and enterprises are crucial under Rule 10B(3) for a valid comparison.

Judgments citing comparable uncontrolled price method

Mahalaxmi Continental Limited, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer (DCIT/ACIT Cir-1), Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 54/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250Section 92B

appropriate method and rightly made the adjustments by selecting suitable comparables considering the size and nature of business of comparables as against the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP) followed by the assessee to benchmark the said transactions. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) justified the addition. 7. We have carefully perused

Mahalaxmi Continental Limited, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer (DCIT/ACIT Cir-1), Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 53/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250Section 92B

appropriate method and rightly made the adjustments by selecting suitable comparables considering the size and nature of business of comparables as against the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP) followed by the assessee to benchmark the said transactions. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) justified the addition. 7. We have carefully perused

DCIT, Kolkata vs. Himadri Speciality Chemical Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2223/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan&For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 115JSection 92C

This indicates that the interest rate charged by the assessee was higher than the local lending rate in Hong Kong. Applying the CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method, it is evident that the lending rate applied by the assessee was at arm's length, as even an external comparable, HSBC Bank ... Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 5 ITR-OL 1 (Delhi), wherein it has held as under:- "14. We note that the comparable uncontrolled price method is the most appropriate method in order to ascertain the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction as that of the assessee

Firstrand Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

marketing support services. Ld. TPO rejected the benchmarking done by the assessee and 15 FirstRand Bank Limited AY 2018-19 applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method ("CUP") and determined the ALP commission rate as follows: Bank Name Rate State Bank of India 2.30% HDFC 1.80% Average

Swatch Group (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), C.R. Building

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

ITA 5929/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22] Swatch Group (India) Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, 4Th Floor, Rectangle-I, Plot No. D- Vs Circle 22(2), 4, Saket District Centre, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi, New Delhi-110017. 110002. Pan- Aafcs7516R Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 92C

class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribed namely: - (a)comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method; (c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e)Transaction net margin method; (f) Any other method provided in Rule

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

traditional transaction method is preferable to the transactional profit method. Moreover, where, taking account of the criteria described in paragraph 2.2, the comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP) and another transfer pricing method can be applied in on equally reliable manner, the CUP method is 10 be preferred. See paragraphs

The India Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1) Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 2174/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 10(39)Section 115JSection 14A

reported this intra-unit transfer in Form 3CEB filed for AY 2020-21 and the said specified domestic transaction was benchmarked following the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [hereinafter referred to as CUP]. While undertaking the benchmarking exercise, the non-eligible unit was taken as the 'tested party' and the transfer

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)

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 transaction or a number of such

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

before this Tribunal. 9. Shri Mehul Ranpura, the Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued, on merit, that the assessee has adopted CUP method (comparable uncontrolled price method) for its specified domestic transactions. However, during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has adopted TAMM (Transactional Net Margin Method). The Ld. Counsel ... 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 price method), for bench marking the specified domestic transaction, and for that the assessee has submitted necessary documentary evidences which are placed in paper-book

Andhra Paper Limited, Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.349/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2020-21) Vs. Acit – Circle -1 Andhra Paper Limited 14-6-9, Admin Office Veerabhadrapuram Kateru Road Rajahmundry-533101 Sri Ramnagar S.O. (Rajahmundry) Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry (Urban) East Godavari – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaact8849D]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / TPO has erred in rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method to determine the arm's length price ('ALP') for payment of royalty in relation to 'Hammermill' and IP' trademark / tradename. 6. That on the facts

Concentrix Catalyst Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 963/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri D Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

documentation for benchmarking the subject transaction. 14. erred in rejecting the corroborative analysis undertaken by the Appellant for benchmarking the subject transaction using comparable uncontrolled price method to identify the comparative borrowings from the sources namely RBI, Thomas Reuters LPC Loan calculator and Bloomberg to conclude the same

Kantar Analytics India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Firefly Market Reserch India Private Limited (Successor of Analytics Quotient Service India Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4733/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

when the taxpayer fails to substantiate cost, allocation, need, rendition and benefit, the law directs the Transfer-Pricing Officer to adopt the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method and to record a NIL arm's-length price 25. It has already been brought out that the first step in determination ... Officer has not adopted any method. We hold that the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the nil value of these services adopting comparable uncontrolled price method. This is so because unless above four basic specific tests are fulfilled, no independent party would have paid such

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi vs. Tvarur and Fats Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3006/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assistant Commissioner Vs. Tvarur & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Of Income Tax, Unit No. 101, 102A, First Floor, Room No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 9, Realtech Copia, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Corporate Suits, Jasola District Extension, New Delhi Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aaect7561Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 83/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 3006/Del/2024) Tvarur & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 101, 102A, First Income Tax, Floor, Plot No. 9, Room No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Ara Realtechcopia, Corporate Centre, Jhandewalan Suits, Jasola District Extension, New Delhi Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aaect7561Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Sh. Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 92C

challenge the Addition of Rs. 2,18,32,196/- on account of Transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA(3) by rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, adopted by the appellant, for determining the Arm's Length Price. 9.1 The Appellant vide Ground No. 3(a) & (b), challenged the rejection of "Comparable

Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6748/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 37Section 41Section 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

Schneider Electric Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), C. R. Building, Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 5589/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22 Schneider Electric Private Vs Dcit, Limited, Circle 22(2), C-56, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Delhi. Phase-2, West Delhi, Delhi – 110 064. Pan: Abacs1671F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate & Ms Tanya, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Ay 2021-22. 2. Heard & Perused The Records. On The Basis Of Submission & Material On Record It Comes Up That Assesse/ Appellant (Sepl) Was Incorporated In 2018 As A Subsidiary Of Schneider Electric Industries Sas (A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Schneider Electric Se) & Belgium. It Is A Private Limited Company

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Appellant to its AEs by rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant and determining arm’s length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (“CUP”) Method. The relevant grounds pressed by the assesse are as follows; 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case ... from its AEs by rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant and arbitrarily determining arm's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (“CUP”) Method. In doing so, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/ Hon’ble DRP have grossly erred in: 3.1 disregarding the documentary evidences submitted

Tupperware India Private Limited, Connaught Place New Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ip Estate New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 4475/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92BSection 92C

maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily determining aim's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (“CUP”) Method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10B of the Rules, thereby resulting in an adjustment

Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Gurugram, Haryana, India vs. The Deputy Or Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram, Haryana, India

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per the directions given to AO/TPO above

ITA 4439/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Vs Dcit, 16Th Floor, Building No.5, Circle-1(1), Block-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram. Phase Iii, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aapca2671M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate; Ms Reema Grewal, Ca; & Ms Snigdha Gautam, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ld. Ao’) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. The Assessee Is Part Of The Multinational Group, Arabian Trading Group Which Is Based Out Of Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia & Is Engaged In Generating, Developing, Accumulating, Distributing & Supplying Electricity By Setting Renewable Energy Power Plants. This Is The First Year Of The Assessment Of The Assessee. During The Year, The Assessee Has Undertaken The Following International Transactions:- International Transactions Transfer Pricing Method Total Value Of International Transactions (In Inr) Issue Of Compulsorily Other Method 2,44,77,26,400 Convertible Debentures (Ccds) Interest On Ccds Comparable Uncontrolled 46,52,90,098 Price (Cup) Method Issue Of Equity Shares Other Method 45,04,31,700

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

coordinate Bench was dealing with a situation where the transaction of payment of interest on CCD was in dispute. The assessee had applied Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method to demonstrate that the international transaction were at ALP. The TPO observed that the assessee, in fact, availed funds from its related concerns

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, Mathura Road, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 433/DEL/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction or closely linked, or continuous transactions

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 430/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction or closely linked, or continuous transactions

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2035/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction or closely linked, or continuous transactions