← 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

Caterpillar Financial Servies India Private Limited, Whitefield, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Jurisdictional AO - ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1)), Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1621/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)
Section 92C

transactions is computed having regard to the same base. . IT(TP)A No.1621/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 14 2.2.5 The TPO has rightly selected comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP) under rule 10B(1)(a). Under CUP method the price charged or paid for services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction ... view of the above discussion, the Panel finds that the TPO has rightly rejected the TNMM as Most Appropriate Method and selected Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method. Further, as the assessee failed to prove the rendition of alleged services to it by the AE, the tangible benefits that accrued

Sanghi Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

third parties by the captive power unit the correct ALP and correct interpretation of CUP? Rule 10B(1)(a)(i) reads thus: (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

Decathlon Sports India Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 1874/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 92C

revenue authorities and therefore even the benefit test cannot be applied. The learned authorised representative further stated that the adoption of the comparable uncontrolled price method by the learned transfer pricing officer is also devoid of any merit. . However, the learned authorised representative stated that assessee has produced evidence before

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2203/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Divesh Chawla, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 92E

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited India Branches, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2202/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Divesh Chawla, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 92E

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited -India Branches, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2201/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Divesh Chawla, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 92E

length price [See section 92C(1)] Clause 14(4) Clause 14(e) Clause 14(1) INR Varies 103,795,822 103,795,822 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below) 2 JSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited Finance Department 3rd FloorHexagon Plot No 3 and 4 Hitech City ... Private Limited 52/60 Mahatma Gandhi Road Fort Mumbai 400 001 Interest paid/payable on Fixed Deposits INR Varies 2,782,999 2,782,999 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below) 5 HSBC Investdirect Distribution Services India Ltd Interest paid / payable on Fixed Deposits INR Varies

DCIT(It)-2(2)(2), Nariman Point vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Bandra

ITA 1335/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Divesh Chawla, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 92E

price [See section 92C(1)] Clause 14(4) price Clause 14(e) Clause 14(1) INR Varies 103,795,822 103,795,822 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below) 2 Interest paid/payable on INK Varies 307,356,493 307,356,493 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Mathod (Refer Note ... Private Limited 52/60 Mahatma Gandhi Road Fort Mumbai 400 001 Interest paid/payable on Fixed Deposits INR Varies 2,782,999 2,782,999 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below) 5 HSBC Investdirect Distribution Services India Ltd Interest paid / payable on Fixed Deposits INR Varies

DCIT(It) - 2(2)(2), Air India Building vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Bandra

ITA 1334/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Divesh Chawla, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 92E

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

DCIT(It)-2(2)(2), Air India Building vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Bandra

ITA 1333/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Divesh Chawla, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 92E

Clause 14(1) 103,795,822 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below) 307,356,493 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Mathod (Refer Note 2 below) 412,973,906 Comparabic Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below) 2,782,999 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below ... Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below) 653,646 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below) 781,400 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below) 2,330,065 Consparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below) 886,974 Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (Refer Note 2 below

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Parishi Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1916/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh SanghaviFor Respondent: 20/08/2024
Section 271GSection 92Section 92CSection 92D

finished diamonds 'in its Form 3CEB, wherein it is of 'export of finished diamonds 'in its Form 3CEB, wherein it is stated that comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP) was stated that comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP) was stated that comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP) was considered as the most appropriate ... Comparable trade the computation of arm's length price as per Comparable trade the computation of arm's length price as per Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP Method) is appropriate. 24. In the transfer pricing study report submitted by the assessee 24. In the transfer pricing

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe. Five specific methods have been set out, namely, (a) comparable uncontrolled price method; (b) resale price method; (c) cost plus method; (d) profit split method; (e) transactional net margin method. Sub-section (2) of section ... Clause (a) of rule 10B(1) prescribes the manner of determination of the ALP under the CUP method, which reads as under: “(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

Deutsche Equities India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 8354/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Based Trades (DVP) Trade and Programme Trade. TPO noted that for benchmarking the International Transaction relating to CH Trades, the Assessee had adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [for short ‘CUP Method’] as the Most Appropriate Method. Even though the Assessee had undertaken CH Trades with non-AEs/third parties

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Equities India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 8033/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Based Trades (DVP) Trade and Programme Trade. TPO noted that for benchmarking the International Transaction relating to CH Trades, the Assessee had adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [for short ‘CUP Method’] as the Most Appropriate Method. Even though the Assessee had undertaken CH Trades with non-AEs/third parties

ACIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bofa Securities India Limited (Earlier Known As Dsp Merrill Lynch Ltd ), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6175/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

adjustment after analyzing the AE and non-AE business in the following manner:- “Considering the above, the contention of the company that, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is not the most appropriate method, is not acceptable and, accordingly rejected. In this case, the internal comparables are available and the data ... reliable than the data of independent enterprises, which are selected by the company to be the comparables. In the analysis using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, the comparable uncontrolled transactions considered are the transactions with Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and not the domestic clients, for the following reasons: M/s. Bafa

M/S Bofa Securities India Limited (Formerly Known As A Dsp Merill Lynch Ltd ), Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 5864/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)

adjustment after analyzing the AE and non-AE business in the following manner:- “Considering the above, the contention of the company that, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is not the most appropriate method, is not acceptable and, accordingly rejected. In this case, the internal comparables are available and the data ... reliable than the data of independent enterprises, which are selected by the company to be the comparables. In the analysis using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, the comparable uncontrolled transactions considered are the transactions with Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and not the domestic clients, for the following reasons

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bofa Securities India Limited (Earlier Known As M/S Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited ), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5425/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

adjustment after analyzing the AE and non-AE business in the following manner:- “Considering the above, the contention of the company that, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is not the most appropriate method, is not acceptable and, accordingly rejected. In this case, the internal comparables are available and the data ... reliable than the data of independent enterprises, which are selected by the company to be the comparables. In the analysis using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, the comparable uncontrolled transactions considered are the transactions with Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and not the domestic clients, for the following reasons: M/s. Bafa

Bofa Securities India Limited (Formerly Known As Dsp Merill Lynch Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5416/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)

adjustment after analyzing the AE and non-AE business in the following manner:- “Considering the above, the contention of the company that, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method is not the most appropriate method, is not acceptable and, accordingly rejected. In this case, the internal comparables are available and the data ... reliable than the data of independent enterprises, which are selected by the company to be the comparables. In the analysis using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, the comparable uncontrolled transactions considered are the transactions with Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and not the domestic clients, for the following reasons: M/s. Bafa

DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Htc India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1785/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

following methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction etc., 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 as may be prescribed

Takenaka India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. JCIT (OSD) Circle-25(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 5581/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Cit (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aadct6143P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Cit(A)”)-44, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Correctness Of The Order On Following Grounds:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Income Tax Rules, which clearly state that the arm's length price can be determined by using the comparable uncontrolled price method by which the price charged or paid is identified. The same denoted that the CUP has to be one which has actually occurred, and not a quotation/guidance/notification

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3093/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w SamkitFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80Section 80ISection 92Section 92B

case of M/s Torrent Power Ltd. - Generation, Ahmedabad as a lone suitable comparable instance for the purpose of application of the "Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method" ('CUP method") as prescribed in the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 1.2. in not appreciating that the level of market of the comparable transaction adopted