“comparable uncontrolled price method”

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

sale of power and charges to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) for which the method used for determining ALP was reported as Comparable Uncontrolled Price method (CUP). 8.1. Ld. TPO carried out a transfer pricing assessment proceeding for which due compliance was made by the assessee. After taking into consideration

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Mahindra Homes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

transaction between two independent entities. Further, the rates were subjected to the financial strength of the borrowing company. The Ld. TPO noted that Comparable Uncontrolled Price method (CUP) requires strict comparability of the benchmarking data whereas the benchmark interest rate from the RBI website considered by the assessee indicated

ACIT-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dsv Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Formerlyut Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross

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

Officer has not adopted any method. We hold that the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the nil value of this 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 ... Associated Enterprise's cost base or the logic of its revenue-linked allocation keys. Confronted with that vacuum the TPO applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, concluded that an independent enterprise would have paid nothing, and therefore arrived at a nil arm's-length price-a course of action expressly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dsv Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Ut Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross

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

adopted any method. We hold that the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has ITA no. 398/Mum/2019 determined the nil value of this 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 ... Associated Enterprise's cost base or the logic of its revenue-linked allocation keys. Confronted with that vacuum the TPO applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, concluded that an independent enterprise would have paid nothing, and therefore arrived at a nil arm's-length price-a course of action expressly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dsv Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Ut Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenueand cross

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

Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly UT Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd.) determined the nil value of this 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 as sum to the Associated Enterprises. Accordingly, as nobody ... Associated Enterprise's cost base or the logic of its revenue-linked allocation keys. Confronted with that vacuum the TPO applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, concluded that an independent enterprise would have paid nothing, and therefore arrived at a nil arm's-length price-a course of action expressly

M/S. Laxmi Organic Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

comparability is not between the entities or the role they play, but only of the price of the products under the CUP (comparable uncontrolled price) method, then only rule 10B(2)(a),(c) and (d) come into play, whereas, for example, in the case of TNMM (transactional net margin method ... come into play in each case, (j) in not appreciating that on account of the inherent nature of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, which is solely governed by the prices settled by the market mechanism, for a product where "specific characteristics of the property transferred or services rendered" is materially

Schindler India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2020-21 Schindler India Private Limited, The Asst. Commissioner Of Schindler House, Income Tax, Main Street, Vs. Circle-15(3)(2) Hiranandani Gardens, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai -400076 New Marine Lines, [Pan: Aaecs1548J] Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

case and in law, the Ld. AO/TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in rejecting benchmarking approach adopted by Assessee using Comparable Uncontrolled Price method (CUP) as the Most appropriate method selected by the Assessee based on the contemporaneous data in the transfer pricing study report maintained

DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai vs. Era Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Bleshri Girish Agrawal, Hon'Ble

Income Tax Act and Rule 10AB the transfer pricing officer is required to determine ALP using prescribed method such as (CUP)comparable uncontrolled price method, transaction net margin method (TNMM), resale price method (RPM) or profit split method (PSM) or any other method. The TPO did not adopted