← All Phrases

“CUP method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C828 judgments

The decision most relied on for CUP method is Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (44 SOT 391), cited in 39 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on CUP 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.

10 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
43 Taxmann.com 191 · 2014 · Reported
26
citing judgments

Bank guarantee commission prices are not comparable to external CUPs for benchmarking corporate guarantees in transfer pricing.

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.

CIT v. Star Paper Mills Ltd.
172 Taxmann.com 391 · 2025 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The transfer price for intra-group services, specifically the sale of power from a captive power plant to a manufacturing unit, can be benchmarked based on the price at which the manufacturing unit procures power from the State Electricity Board, especially when it reflects a reasonable and arm's length price.

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.

Star India P. Ltd. v. ACIT
317 ITR 292 · 2009 · ITAT
16
citing judgments

When analyzing international transactions, separate classes of transactions, such as fees for technical know-how, use of trademarks, and procurement, must be analyzed individually, as each impacts profits. Aggregation of such transactions is not permissible.

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.

Judgments citing CUP method

M/S. Sp Imperial Star Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 3(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5862/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 948Section 94B

facts and circumstances of the case by completely ignoring the revised Form 3CEB filed by the appellant & rejecting the working under internal CUP method which reflected the correct position as per the law. 2. The learned TPO / DRP / AO have erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case ... ignoring the fact that the benchmarking under internal CUP method results in NIL TP adjustment. 3. The learned DRP has erred in ignoring various judicial pronouncements wherein it is held that internal comparable transactions are to be preferred over the external transactions. comparable 4. The learned TPO / DRP / AO have

Jsw Energy Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3714/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR/
Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 80I

pages 7 to 9 of the final assessment order. 7.2 The assessee benchmarked the international transaction of the interest payment under Comparable uncontrolled price(CUP) method. The assessee also submitted that during the financial year 2019-2020 the loan outstanding with associated enterprises was amounted to Rs.330.96 crores, which ... outside South Africa. 2.9.3 Without prejudice to the above submissions, the assessee benchmarked the loan transaction on the basis of External Comparable Uncontrolled Price [CUP] Method by comparing the interest rates at which the independent parties with similar credit ratings would be able to obtain intra-group loans

Jsw Energy (Barmer) Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3713/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR/For Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Kabra
Section 14A

international transaction of The assessee benchmarked the international transaction of the interest payment under the interest payment under Comparable uncontrolled price( Comparable uncontrolled price(CUP) method. The assessee also submitted that d The assessee also submitted that during the financial year uring the financial year 2019-2020 the loan outstanding ... basis of assessee benchmarked the loan transaction on the basis of assessee benchmarked the loan transaction on the basis of External Comparable Uncontrolled Price [CUP] Method by External Comparable Uncontrolled Price [CUP] Method by External Comparable Uncontrolled Price [CUP] Method by JSW Energy Ltd ITA Nos. 3714 & 3713/MUM/2024 comparing

At & T Global Network Services India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

ITA 1576/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

payment of royalty thereby challenging the commercial wisdom of the Appellant in making payment for royalty; 3.3. arbitrarily rejecting the supplementary analysis using CUP method to benchmark the payment of royalty transaction submitted by the Appellant without giving any cogent reasons; 3.4. undertaking fresh benchmarking analysis using Royaltystat database

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6664/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

accept the submissions made by the assessee in this regard and proceeded to make a TP adjustment @ 1% of guarantee amount by applying external CUP method to make a TP adjustment of Rs.2,57,08,000. Before the DRP the assessee submitted that the no guarantee fee can be charged

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

rate of 10 basis points of guarantee amount as per the agreement. 48. The TPO directed the assessee to bench mark the transaction using CUP method and to show-cause why consequent adjustment could not be made. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee renders only support administrative ... services towards the bank guarantee for which a fixed fees is charged. The assessee further submitted that the CUP method may not be the most appropriate method since the guarantee given by the Indian Branch in this case is supported by a back to back indemnity and therefore cannot

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

rate of 10 basis points of guarantee amount as per the agreement. 48. The TPO directed the assessee to bench mark the transaction using CUP method and to show-cause why consequent adjustment could not be made. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee renders only support administrative ... services towards the bank guarantee for which a fixed fees is charged. The assessee further submitted that the CUP method may not be the most appropriate method since the guarantee given by the Indian Branch in this case is supported by a back to back indemnity and therefore cannot

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

rate of 10 basis points of guarantee amount as per the agreement. 48. The TPO directed the assessee to bench mark the transaction using CUP method and to show-cause why consequent adjustment could not be made. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee renders only support administrative ... services towards the bank guarantee for which a fixed fees is charged. The assessee further submitted that the CUP method may not be the most appropriate method since the guarantee given by the Indian Branch in this case is supported by a back to back indemnity and therefore cannot

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

rate of 10 basis points of guarantee amount as per the agreement. 48. The TPO directed the assessee to bench mark the transaction using CUP method and to show-cause why consequent adjustment could not be made. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee renders only support administrative ... services towards the bank guarantee for which a fixed fees is charged. The assessee further submitted that the CUP method may not be the most appropriate method since the guarantee given by the Indian Branch in this case is supported by a back to back indemnity and therefore cannot

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4652/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

rate of 10 basis points of guarantee amount as per the agreement. 48. The TPO directed the assessee to bench mark the transaction using CUP method and to show-cause why consequent adjustment could not be made. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee renders only support administrative ... services towards the bank guarantee for which a fixed fees is charged. The assessee further submitted that the CUP method may not be the most appropriate method since the guarantee given by the Indian Branch in this case is supported by a back to back indemnity and therefore cannot

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2313/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

rate of 10 basis points of guarantee amount as per the agreement. 48. The TPO directed the assessee to bench mark the transaction using CUP method and to show-cause why consequent adjustment could not be made. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee renders only support administrative ... services towards the bank guarantee for which a fixed fees is charged. The assessee further submitted that the CUP method may not be the most appropriate method since the guarantee given by the Indian Branch in this case is supported by a back to back indemnity and therefore cannot

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1273/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

rate of 10 basis points of guarantee amount as per the agreement. 48. The TPO directed the assessee to bench mark the transaction using CUP method and to show-cause why consequent adjustment could not be made. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee renders only support administrative ... services towards the bank guarantee for which a fixed fees is charged. The assessee further submitted that the CUP method may not be the most appropriate method since the guarantee given by the Indian Branch in this case is supported by a back to back indemnity and therefore cannot

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

rate of 10 basis points of guarantee amount as per the agreement. 48. The TPO directed the assessee to bench mark the transaction using CUP method and to show-cause why consequent adjustment could not be made. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee renders only support administrative ... services towards the bank guarantee for which a fixed fees is charged. The assessee further submitted that the CUP method may not be the most appropriate method since the guarantee given by the Indian Branch in this case is supported by a back to back indemnity and therefore cannot

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

rate of 10 basis points of guarantee amount as per the agreement. 48. The TPO directed the assessee to bench mark the transaction using CUP method and to show-cause why consequent adjustment could not be made. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee renders only support administrative ... services towards the bank guarantee for which a fixed fees is charged. The assessee further submitted that the CUP method may not be the most appropriate method since the guarantee given by the Indian Branch in this case is supported by a back to back indemnity and therefore cannot

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent)

Section 143(3)

rate of 10 basis points of guarantee amount as per the agreement. 48. The TPO directed the assessee to bench mark the transaction using CUP method and to show-cause why consequent adjustment could not be made. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee renders only support administrative ... services towards the bank guarantee for which a fixed fees is charged. The assessee further submitted that the CUP method may not be the most appropriate method since the guarantee given by the Indian Branch in this case is supported by a back to back indemnity and therefore cannot

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

possible on the part of the department to identify a comparable, which is rendering similar services, the question of considering CUP method would not arise at all. Since the assessee has stated that all the relevant evidences were already available with the Assessing Officer/TPO and on that basis

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

case, the DRP erred in not adjudicating the specific objection raised by the appellant with respect to applicability of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method instead of Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') for benchmarking payment of royalty transactions, and further erred in ignoring the fact that the same method was duly

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

case, the DRP erred in not adjudicating the specific objection raised by the appellant with respect to applicability of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method instead of Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') for benchmarking payment of royalty transactions, and further erred in ignoring the fact that the same method was duly ... IPRs. 9.3. AO/TPO did not accept the submission of the assessee and took it as Nil by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method by holding that with the imported goods, the payment of royalty is embedded and thus, an upward adjustment of royalty was made on two components of Rs.10

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

case, the DRP erred in not adjudicating the specific objection raised by the appellant with respect to applicability of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method instead of Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') for benchmarking payment of royalty transactions, and further erred in ignoring the fact that the same method was duly ... IPRs. 9.3. AO/TPO did not accept the submission of the assessee and took it as Nil by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method by holding that with the imported goods, the payment of royalty is embedded and thus, an upward adjustment of royalty was made on two components of Rs.10

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

case, the DRP erred in not adjudicating the specific objection raised by the appellant with respect to applicability of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method instead of Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') for benchmarking payment of royalty transactions, and further erred in ignoring the fact that the same method was duly ... IPRs. 9.3. AO/TPO did not accept the submission of the assessee and took it as Nil by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method by holding that with the imported goods, the payment of royalty is embedded and thus, an upward adjustment of royalty was made on two components of Rs.10