← All Phrases

“CUP method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C828 judgments

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 5560/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

general tariff rate does not reflect the statutory prescription as contained in section 92C read with Rule 10C. Under the statutory provision, under the CUP method, the related party transactions are required to be compared with the unrelated third-party transaction. While as submitted, the tariff rates are generally prescribed ... energy is actually consumed in that geographical region. This does not mean that the quoted price cannot be used for the comparability analysis in cup method. But if the prices are so divergent and the difference between the two external cup becomes irreconcilable, the external cup price which is more

MAHALAXMI CONTINENTAL LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (DCIT/ACIT CIR-1), GUWAHATI

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

ITA 54/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250Section 92B

same amount was added back by the AO. The Appellant contends that it had adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method to determine the purchase price from Associated Enterprises (AE) and the same should have been accepted by the AO. It is clear from records that TNMM is the Most Appropriate ... Officer suggested the downward adjustment for benchmarking the transactions on the ground that the method followed by the assessee for benchmarking the transaction i.e. CUP method is not appropriate and the correct method is TNMM method. Since we have already deleted the addition made

MAHALAXMI CONTINENTAL LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (DCIT/ACIT CIR-1), GUWAHATI

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

ITA 53/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 250Section 92B

same amount was added back by the AO. The Appellant contends that it had adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method to determine the purchase price from Associated Enterprises (AE) and the same should have been accepted by the AO. It is clear from records that TNMM is the Most Appropriate ... Officer suggested the downward adjustment for benchmarking the transactions on the ground that the method followed by the assessee for benchmarking the transaction i.e. CUP method is not appropriate and the correct method is TNMM method. Since we have already deleted the addition made

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED - INDIA BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4580/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

issued a show cause on the assessee to explain as to why the guarantee commission should not be benchmarked as per market rates using CUP method. In order to apply the CUP, he called information from various banks u/s. 133(6), details of which is tabulated below to arrive

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2006/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

section 92B of the Act and the assessee conducted a transfer pricing study under section 92C of the Act using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. As per the benchmarking analysis carried out by an independent Chartered Accountant firm, the royalty rate of 4% of adjusted sales paid ... Representative. The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm's length price of the royalty payment by applying CUP method. Firstly, neither the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer nor any other material even remotely demonstrate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 1 1 , VADODARA, VADODARA vs. NETAFIM IRRIGATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2005/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

section 92B of the Act and the assessee conducted a transfer pricing study under section 92C of the Act using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. As per the benchmarking analysis carried out by an independent Chartered Accountant firm, the royalty rate of 4% of adjusted sales paid ... Representative. The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the Transfer Pricing Officer determined the arm's length price of the royalty payment by applying CUP method. Firstly, neither the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer nor any other material even remotely demonstrate

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) was justified in rejecting the external CUP method applied by the Ld. TPO to benchmark the interest rate on loans/advances given to its AEs by the assessee company and not appreciating the factors ... towards alleged forex risk adjustment in respect of loans advanced to Associated Enterprises (AEs). The Revenue has also challenged the rejection of the external CUP method adopted by the TPO. 4.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2525/BANG/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270ASection 92C

data necessary for application of the method is important. Accordingly, comparable data was identified. The details of the same have been provided below: The CUP method refers to comparing the price charged or paid for services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction with that charged to an AE. Hence ... LIBOR plus 4.9%) has already been conducted in the previous assessment year, the same has not been benchmarked again in the current year. Thus, CUP method can be applied to the international transaction subject IT(TP)A No.2525/Bang/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 to availability of data. Even though the Indian

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1560/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

branch). The said adjustment was made by\nconsidering the LOC to be akin to a guarantee and was benchmarked on the\nbasis of the CUP method by adopting the rate of 1.08% charged by the Bank to\nits customers in India for issuance of financial guarantees.\nThe A.R. relied upon

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1446/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

branch). The said adjustment was made by\nconsidering the LOC to be akin to a guarantee and was benchmarked on the\nbasis of the CUP method by adopting the rate of 1.08% charged by the Bank to\nits customers in India for issuance of financial guarantees.\nThe A.R. relied upon

DCIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed and\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3995/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
Section 14A

length compensation\nfor interest on delayed receipts from AEs.\n14.6. The Ld.AR submitted that the use of controlled transactions\nfor the application of the CUP method by the Ld.TPO is flawed that\ndisregards the provisions of the law.\nWe have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light ... such rates have been determined by adopting LIBOR plus\n50 basis points. The assessee has benchmarked the said\ninternational transactions by applying the internal CUP method on\nthe basis of a letter issued by HDFC Bank evidencing the rate of\ninterest charged by the bank on a loan advanced

ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed and\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3432/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2008-09
Section 14A

length compensation\nfor interest on delayed receipts from AEs.\n14.6. The Ld.AR submitted that the use of controlled transactions\nfor the application of the CUP method by the Ld.TPO is flawed that\ndisregards the provisions of the law.\nWe have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light ... such rates have been determined by adopting LIBOR plus\n50 basis points. The assessee has benchmarked the said\ninternational transactions by applying the internal CUP method on\nthe basis of a letter issued by HDFC Bank evidencing the rate of\ninterest charged by the bank on a loan advanced

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2223/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 92C

recording an finding that interest rate charged by the assessee was higher than the local lending rate in Hong Kong and applying the CUP method. It is evident that lending rate applied by the assessee was at Arm's Length Price even at an external comparable as HSBC has charged

JAGDEEP SINGH DHANOA,UNITED ARAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER IT 2(1) (1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1681/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarjagdeep Singh Dhanoa Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8202, 23 Marina, Po Pox It (2)(1), Mumbai 73392, Dubai Marina Dubai 1724, 17Th Floor, Air Ar, Foreign, India Building, United Arab Emirates- Nariman Point, 73392 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. Aadpd4843R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 26.04.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) (1), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

which no adjustment to income would require to be made. 2) Considering the transaction with another AE for benchmarking the TP adjustment using Internal CUP method: 2.1 The Ld. DRP erred in upholding the aforesaid TP adjustment made by the Ld. TPO @12.5%, by considering the transaction with another

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD, VADODARA

ITA 2036/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

passed u/s. 92CA of the Act. The DRP, Ahmedabad vide order dated 27-9-2010 held that the royalty is to be benchmarked using CUP method and royalty at the rate of 2.3% is the correct ALP. Therefore, as against addition of Rs.350.56 lakh on account of royalty payment made ... that in many decisions referred in the remand report it has been held that the ALP of royalty payment should be determined by using CUP method is not acceptable at this stage. The TPO has not pointed out any defect in the ALP determined by the appellant using TNMM considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),VADODARA, VADODARA vs. M/S SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD, VADODARA

ITA 2019/AHD/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

passed u/s. 92CA of the Act. The DRP, Ahmedabad vide order dated 27-9-2010 held that the royalty is to be benchmarked using CUP method and royalty at the rate of 2.3% is the correct ALP. Therefore, as against addition of Rs.350.56 lakh on account of royalty payment made ... that in many decisions referred in the remand report it has been held that the ALP of royalty payment should be determined by using CUP method is not acceptable at this stage. The TPO has not pointed out any defect in the ALP determined by the appellant using TNMM considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD, VADODARA

ITA 2018/AHD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

passed u/s. 92CA of the Act. The DRP, Ahmedabad vide order dated 27-9-2010 held that the royalty is to be benchmarked using CUP method and royalty at the rate of 2.3% is the correct ALP. Therefore, as against addition of Rs.350.56 lakh on account of royalty payment made ... that in many decisions referred in the remand report it has been held that the ALP of royalty payment should be determined by using CUP method is not acceptable at this stage. The TPO has not pointed out any defect in the ALP determined by the appellant using TNMM considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD, VADODARA

ITA 2017/AHD/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

passed u/s. 92CA of the Act. The DRP, Ahmedabad vide order dated 27-9-2010 held that the royalty is to be benchmarked using CUP method and royalty at the rate of 2.3% is the correct ALP. Therefore, as against addition of Rs.350.56 lakh on account of royalty payment made ... that in many decisions referred in the remand report it has been held that the ALP of royalty payment should be determined by using CUP method is not acceptable at this stage. The TPO has not pointed out any defect in the ALP determined by the appellant using TNMM considering

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

commission rate as follows: Bank Name Rate State Bank of India 2.30% HDFC 1.80% Average 2.05% 10.2. Ld. TPO thus, applied the external CUP method for benchmarking by adopting the average bank guarantee fee rate charged by third-party banks of 2.05%. After allowing a downward adjustment

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7487/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

overseas associated enterprises (AE's)]. Ground 2: Rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) used by the Appellant and adopting External Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO. based ... instructions and counter guarantee received from the AE, without undertaking risk on the overseas third party requesting the guarantee. b) In adopting external CUP method as the most appropriate method to determine the ALP of the international transaction, by using information received/collected from third party Indian banks under section

Showing 1–20 of 828 · Page 1 of 42

...