“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

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1195/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth SR.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

benchmarked by the appellant in its TP documentation. In respect of the LOCs issued by the appellant to its AEs, the TPO selected Comparable Uncontrolled Price method ("CUP") as the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of this transaction and in determining the price

Clsa India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 6232/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Clsa India Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit Ltu 29Th Floor, Centre 1 World Trade Formerly Known As Clsa India Ltd. Vs. 8/F Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Centre, Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2262 K (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarpekar, Shri Paras Savla : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Sr. Ar & Respondent By Shri A. K. Ambastha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024

Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Rs.1,45,52,584/- to be the ALP of the international transaction pertaining to the payment of the brand fee by using the comparable uncontrolled price method to be the most appropriate method. 21. The ld. CIT(A) in an appeal preferred by the assessee against the said order confirmed

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Culver Max Entertainment Private Lmited ( Formerly Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (Successor of Taj Television India Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7210/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Sony Pictures Networks Asst. Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income-Tax, (Successor Of Taj Television Circle 16(1) India Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Interface 7, 4Th Floor, Off Malad Room No. 467, Link Road, Malad (W), M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct5103D Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

with respect to the alternative benchmarking methodology of transactional net margin method, is devoid of any merit because assessee has accepted comparable uncontrolled price method as the most appropriate method. The learned transfer pricing officer is also accepted the same. Therefore, this ground is dismissed. 023. Ground number

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaltata International Ltd., Block A, Shivsagar Estates Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018, Pan: Aaact3198F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit – 7(3), R. No. 675, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, Ld. DR

Section 144CSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

documentation. In respect of the LOCs issued by the appellant to its AEs, the TPO 12 TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD. selected Comparable Uncontrolled Price method ("CUP") as the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of this transaction and in determining the price, the TPO mentioned that Indian

Michael Page International Recruitment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

specified domestic 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

Denso Haryana Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3811/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Denso Haryana Pvt. Ltd., Versus Dcit, Circle 10(1), B-1/D-4, Ground Floor, Mohan New Delhi. Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi. Pan:Aaacd6817F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha, Adv. Sh. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 92B

length price. Relevant extract of Rule 10B(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") reads as under: “(a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which: (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services received in a comparable uncontrolled transaction or a number of such transaction

Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 72/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 73

inter alia erred on the following grounds: -Rejecting the transactional net margin method as the most appropriate method and considering the comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP) as the most appropriate method to benchmark the aforesaid international transaction; and -While applying CUP as the most appropriate method, in not granting ... With respect to brokerage services, assessee has received brokerage fees of ₹181,49,41,232/-. Assessee adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled price Method [CUP method] as MAM . Assessee submitted that the average broking charges of the assessee to the Associated Enterprises in respect of cash equity trade is 0.25% and assessee

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 45/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 73

Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1654/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

that the general principle of plurality is not abandoned or discarded. 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

Malco Energy Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte SethnaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115J

fuel stock to Malco Energy Ltd.; A.Y.2015-16 determine the arm‟s-length price and concluded that for determining the arm‟s-length price Comparable Uncontrolled Price method [ CUP] method cannot be applied due to non-availability of transaction level data through both internal and external sources. Therefore, it adopted ... objection a) related to the transfer pricing adjustment, held that the learned TPO is correct in adopting the most appropriate method of comparable uncontrolled price method, for the comparability standard and analysis adopting TIPS data is correct. Accordingly, the transfer pricing adjustment was upheld. b) Related to disallowance

DCIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2077/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri

Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

fact that, assessee has not charged any guarantee fees from its associated enterprises. For the purpose of benchmarking, the assessee adopted the comparable uncontrolled price method and pg. 20 considered the average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers to the assessee placed at page number 383 of the paper

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1597/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri

Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri

Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3272/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

fact that, assessee has not charged any guarantee fees from its associated enterprises. For the purpose of benchmarking, the assessee adopted the comparable uncontrolled price method and considered the average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers to the assessee placed at page number 383 of the paper book, which

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri

Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1656/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

fact that, assessee has not charged any guarantee fees from its associated enterprises. For the purpose of benchmarking, the assessee adopted the comparable uncontrolled price method and considered the average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers to the assessee placed at page number 383 of the paper book, which

M/S Andritz Hydro Private Limited, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Circle 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 75/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Andritz Hydro Private Dcit Circe 1(1) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. D-17, Mpakvn Industrial Area, Mandideep Raisen (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcv 2466 R Assessee By Shri Rahul, Kaul Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2023

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