← 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

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

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

ITA 3267/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

value is compared with the arm’s length price, no adjustment is required. 07. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer held that under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, an item-by-item [product-by-product] comparison has to be made and this approach was adopted in the earlier year also

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

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

ITA 8120/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

value is compared with the arm’s length price, no adjustment is required. 07. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer held that under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, an item-by-item [product-by-product] comparison has to be made and this approach was adopted in the earlier year also

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

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

ITA 8084/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

value is compared with the arm’s length price, no adjustment is required. 07. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer held that under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, an item-by-item [product-by-product] comparison has to be made and this approach was adopted in the earlier year also

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7511/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

value is compared with the arm’s length price, no adjustment is required. 07. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer held that under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, an item-by-item [product-by-product] comparison has to be made and this approach was adopted in the earlier year also

Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As J M Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

method for determining the ALP for trades executed with the AES. 1.3 In not accepting the Appellant's contention that even if the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP Method) is applied for determining the ALP then ITA Nos.2206 &2320/Mum2011 Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd; A.Y. 05-06 the comparability

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2206/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

method for determining the ALP for trades executed with the AES. 1.3 In not accepting the Appellant's contention that even if the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP Method) is applied for determining the ALP then ITA Nos.2206 &2320/Mum2011 Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd; A.Y. 05-06 the comparability

ACIT Cir 1, Thane vs. Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 2788/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

methods (Transaction Net Margin Method two methods (Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM') in the first (TNMM') in the first place and then Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ('CUP') as place and then Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ('CUP') place and then Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ('CUP') an alternate) for calculating Arms' Length

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

ITA 2628/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

methods (Transaction Net Margin Method two methods (Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM') in the first (TNMM') in the first place and then Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ('CUP') as place and then Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ('CUP') place and then Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ('CUP') an alternate) for calculating Arms' Length

Liebherr India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2169/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

compared to the earlier years. In earlier years the transaction pertaining to commission segment, service segment and trading segment were benchmarked using Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP), Cost Plus Method (CPM) and Resale Price Method (RPM), respectively. However, for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Appellant had adopted aggregation approach

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

class of associated persons OR functions performed by such persons OR such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe, viz., (i) Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method; (ii) Resale Price Method; (iii) Cost Plus Method; (iv) Profit Split Method; (v) Transactional Net Margin Method; (vi) Such other method

M/S. Steer Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2071/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.290, 4Th Main, 4Th Phase, Circle – 6(1)(2), Peenya Industrial Area, Nagawara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aabcs 8840 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Susan D. George, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144CSection 92(1)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

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 (CUP);(b) resale price method;(RSPM)(c) cost plus method;(CPM)(d) profit split method;(PSM)(e) transactional net margin method(TNMM);(f) such

Oriental Aromatics Ltd, Mumbi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6331/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92(1)

termed as 'quasi capital'. So far as arm's length price of such transactions are concerned, this cannot be 'nil' because, under the comparable uncontrolled price method, such other transactions between the independent enterprises cannot be at 'nil' consideration either. Nobody would advance loan, in arm's length situation

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

length price paid on the same is NIL. 10. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") as the most appropriate method while computing the arm's length price of the payment of IT and management fees

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

length price paid on the same is NIL. 10. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") as the most appropriate method while computing the arm's length price of the payment of IT and management fees

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

length price paid on the same is NIL. 10. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") as the most appropriate method while computing the arm's length price of the payment of IT and management fees

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

applied the CUP method while examining the payment of brand fee/royalty. The CUP method which in its expanded form is known as "comparable uncontrolled price" method is provided for in Rule 10B(l)(a) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It is one of the methods recognised for determining ... down the manner of determination of the ALP under each method. The five methods recognized by the rule are (i) comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP), (ii) re-sale price method, {in) cost plus method, (iv) profit split method and (v) transactional net marginal method (TNMM). The manner by which

Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 25(2), New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are allowed with above direction

ITA 2333/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fee and arbitrarily determining ALP as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (“CUP”) Method. In doing so, Ld. CIT (A) / Ld. AO / Ld. TPO erred by: 2.1.1 ignoring/rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant without providing

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 889/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

determining the ALP of payment of ‘royalty’. The CUP method under rule 10B (1) (a) has been prescribed in the following manner:- “(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

Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi vs. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 279/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

determining the ALP of payment of ‘royalty’. The CUP method under rule 10B (1) (a) has been prescribed in the following manner:- “(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

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 253/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2025/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 279/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 889/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Addl. Cit, Vs M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-5, 103, Ashok Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj2919A

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &

determining the ALP of payment of ‘royalty’. The CUP method under rule 10B (1) (a) has been prescribed in the following manner:- “(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