“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. E I D Parry India Limited, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

observed that the State Bank of India, Chennai charges 1% along with Service Tax for issue of LOC. Therefore, the TPO applied the comparable uncontrolled price method as the most appropriate method and applied the same along with 0.5% of risk to determine the Arm's Length Price of this

M/S. Eid Parry India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu-1, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

M/S Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6099/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal & (Physical Hearing) M/S. Lubrizol India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Road, Turbhe, Vs Income Tax, Dcit/Acit, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Circle – 3(4), Mumbai. [Pan No. Aaacl 0126 H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Paras Savla Advocate A/W Ms. Rajnandini Shukla, Ca/ Ar Revenue By Ms. Neena Jeph, (Cit Dr) / Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 254(1)

Lubrizol India Private Limited the TPO to demonstrate as to why TNMM selection by assessee is not appropriate and that Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP) is the most appropriate method. The assessee is consistently following TNMM method for similar transaction in earlier years wherein the most appropriate method adopted

Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4630/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Section 254(1)

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

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

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2409/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

DCIT Cir-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Mcleod Russel India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1169/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115OSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92C

follows: 5.3.5. Rule 10B of the I. T. Rules, 1962 prescribes the following with regard to application of the CUP method: “(1)(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

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Mahasang Haryana, Faridabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh/Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 92C

indicates one such dimension. 7. Under rule 10 B (1)(a), the mechanism of determining arm’s length price as per the comparable uncontrolled price method is set out as follows: (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction

Ych Logistics India Private Limited, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1330/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1330/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ych Logistics India Private Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot D V 1, Hi-Tech Sez Phase Ii, V. Income Tax, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Corporate Circle -3(2), Taluk, Tamil Nadu 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacy-2873-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Kumar Jain, CA by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 250Section 92C(3)Section 92D

income of the Appellant. 2.2. The Hon'ble CIT (A) and the Learned TPO erred in law and on facts in adopting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method without bringing on record any comparable transaction I data to Justify the methodology adopted. 2.3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) and the Learned

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 11.1, Kolkata

ITA 2319/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, AR

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

circumstances of the case, the DRP has erred in upholding the disallowance of Royalty Expenses made by Assessing Officer/ TPO by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price method as the most appropriate method for certain brands instead of Transactional Net Margin Method as adopted by RBIL at entity level, and restricting ... circumstances of the case, the TPO/DRP erred in treating the expenses of Rs 17,334,721 as NIL by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, without appreciating that the costs have been scientifically allocated to all group companies. 10(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1801/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

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

circumstances of the case, the DRP has erred in upholding the disallowance of Royalty Expenses made by Assessing Officer/ TPO by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price method as the most appropriate method for certain brands instead of Transactional Net Margin Method as adopted by RBIL at entity level, and restricting ... circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP erred in treating the expenses of Rs 17,334,721 as NIL by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, without appreciating that the costs have been scientifically allocated to all group companies. 10(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2631/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

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

circumstances of the case, the DRP has erred in upholding the disallowance of Royalty Expenses made by Assessing Officer/ TPO by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price method as the most appropriate method for certain brands instead of Transactional Net Margin Method as adopted by RBIL at entity level, and restricting ... circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP erred in treating the expenses of Rs 17,334,721 as NIL by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, without appreciating that the costs have been scientifically allocated to all group companies. 10(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

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

circumstances of the case, the DRP has erred in upholding the disallowance of Royalty Expenses made by Assessing Officer/ TPO by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price method as the most appropriate method for certain brands instead of Transactional Net Margin Method as adopted by RBIL at entity level, and restricting ... circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP erred in treating the expenses of Rs 17,334,721 as NIL by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, without appreciating that the costs have been scientifically allocated to all group companies. 10(a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 2681/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 92BSection 92C

Rehau Polymers Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

ITA 658/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Hitendra B Ninawe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe, namely:- (a) Comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method; (c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method

Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 1160/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40

Transfer Pricing Study Report and the scientific methodology adopted by the Appellant to determine hourly rates and their benchmarking with third parties using Comparable Uncontrolled Price method ("CUP") 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT ought to have appreciated that the provisions

Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Ltd. Which Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Ltd. and Consequently Known As Idea Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle- 5 (3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved; Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Date

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 194HSection 32(1)Section 40Section 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant using comparable uncontrolled price method ("CUP") and not considering the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant using transactional net margin method (TNMM') to determine the ALP of the royalty ... Vodafone Sales and Services Limited (VSSL)] for grant of right to use "Vodafone" trademark and trade name. The Appellant contended that as per Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (for short ‘CUP Method’) the royalty payment was at arm’s length since on analysis of the comparables selected, the Appellant found that

Vvf (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4840/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2Section 92B

outstanding receivables and hence, the practice of not charging interest to AEs for delayed payment is an arm's length practice applying the comparable uncontrolled price method, not warranting any such adjustment for notional interest. 5.5.That the DRP/NFAC/AO/TPO erred on facts and in law in going beyond his jurisdiction

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/MUM/2024[2014-2015 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla/wShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha(PCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

Report dated 29.08.2019 has discussed the comparables selected by the appellant using Powerk database for computing the ALP of royalty transactions under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method (CUP) and has rejected all of the comparables due to differences in the functions performed by the tested party, ie., the appellant

Vodafone Digilink Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla/wShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha (PCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)