“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

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.

10 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

43 Taxmann.com 191 · 2014 · Reported

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lanxess India Private Limited, Thane vs. Income-Tax Officer, Wagle Industrial Estate

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

ITA 4632/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Prabhash Shankar ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

transaction referred to him by the Ld. AO. 9. Stating that Ld. TPO rightly rejected the Appellant's approach by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') Method which is grossly incorrect as there was no mention of the same in the Ld. TPO order. 10. Upholding/confirming the action ... submission of the assessee held that, the intra group services are independent transaction required to be analyzed under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. He also referred to OECD guidelines and held that no charge should be paid for the intra group services which the AE’s render

Lokesh Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-45(5), Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1575/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2Section 92C

under the Act and charging interest on the same. 7. That the CIT(A) has erred in law by determining the Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") method as the most appropriate method without providing and analyzing any comparable uncontrolled transactions). 8. That whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Shree Chandi Maa Mahakali Prachin Mandir Sidh Peeth Samiti, Sonipat vs. CPC, Banglore

ITA 4791/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 92C

order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act determined the arm's length price of international transactions of export of float glass, applying CUP method as against the TNMM applied by the assessee, holding that in the case of the assessee, same products have been sold to unrelated parties ... most suitable method for benchmarking the sale price to associated enterprise. 3.3 The TPO, for the purpose of computing the ALP, has applied CUP method as the most appropriate method, and has adopted following methodology for selection of the comparable uncontrolled transactions: (i) The sales made to associated enterprises

Qubix Business Park Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1994/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

upholding the order passed by Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld.TPO’) wherein the Ld.TPO has rejected the benchmarking conducted by the Assessee by adopting ‘CUP’ method as the most appropriate method for determining the Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’) of the Assessee with respect to interest paid on loan taken from ... wherein the Ld.TPO has determined the arm’s length price with respect to interest paid on loan taken from Embassy office Parks REIT under ‘CUP method’ by adopting the interest rate of 8.95% on the borrowings availed from State Bank of India. 2.3 The Hon’ble. DRP has erred

Greenland Finance and Leasing P. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assesse in ITA No

ITA 1295/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

according to the revenue authorities, delayed. In any event, even when an ALP is made in respect excessive credit period allowed under the CUP method, stated by the TPO, the comparable has to be dues recoverable from a debtor and not a borrower. It appears that the TPO has adopted ... debit balances of associated enterprises can be treated as 'international ITA No.1293 to1295/Del/2022 transactions under section 92 B, the right course of applying the CUP method, in the case of non charging of interest on overdue balances. would have been by comparing this not charging of interest with other cases

Greenland Finance and Leasing P. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assesse in ITA No

ITA 1294/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. DCIT Circle -1, Nellore

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

ITA 502/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate and Shri Nitin Narang,C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 144C(5)Section 92D

Grounds on Rejection of combined Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") selected as Most Appropriate Method ("MAM") by the Appellant and adopting Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") Method/ Other Method without any comparable transaction or any basis for applying such method. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... License Fee for Trademark; c) Intra-group service fee; and d) Interest on outstanding receivables. (Hereinafter referred as 'impugned transactions') using CUP Method/ Other Method and holding that the value of these impugned transactions are not at arm's length. In doing so, the TPO/ DRP erred in not giving

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Regulations. The Ld. AO /TPO /DRP, erred by determining the ALP for the impugned to be NIL while applying the comparable uncontrolled price (“CUP”) method without identifying any comparable uncontrolled transaction, in the absence of which, the application of CUP method is invalid and void. Adjustment on account of interest ... questioned that assessee has entered intra-group services payment which is not an inter-linked transaction and therefore it should be benchmarked adopting the CUP method as the most appropriate method. He also asked the assessee to explain the evidence to prove rendition test, need test, benefit test

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

next contention with respect to the adjustment made to the ALP of the transaction in the hands of the assessee was that the CUP method had not been correctly applied. He stated that this argument was applicable only to the international transaction with AE HLPL and not with SIMPL ... been raised before the Tribunal for the first time, contending that while the TPO had picked up Brunei LNG., as a comparable for applying CUP method, it had failed to make the comparison correctly. He contended that they were two components ITA No.2390/Ahd/2018 & 1783/Ahd/2019 with CO 18 to the services

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Nefab India Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

ITA 509/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nefab India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Gate No.519 1/4/8, Circle 3(1), 30 Km. Milestone, Gurgaon. Near Kalubai Mandir, Golden Quadrilateral Nh-4, Pune, Maharashtra – 412213. Pan : Aaccn1599G

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanveer, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

benefit receipt test. The case of the assessee is also that determination of arm’s length price of the transaction as nil by applying CUP method without providing any information on Comparable Uncontrolled transactions wherein service providers have charged nil price for providing similar services

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7454/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarcorteva Agriscience India Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Circle-11(1), Ltd), 17Th Floor, Tower-C, Dlf New Delhi Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Dcit, Vs. Corteva Agriscience India Circle-11(1), Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Ltd), 17Th New Delhi Floor, Tower-C, Dlf Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv Shri Pulkit Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Rao, CIT DR

Section 144C

taxes from payments made to AE's for services availed. 3.4 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in accepting the CUP method as used by the Ld. TPO as the Most Appropriate Method instead of the TNMM method adopted by the Appellant ... faulty. That apart, the impugned transaction of administrative support services need to be benchmarked separately. Hence the Learned TPO by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the MAM, determined the entire payment of administrative support services arm's length price to be Rs Nil. 13. The Learned TPO also

E.I. Dupont India P. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6879/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Rao, CIT DR

Section 144C

Orchid Pharma Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 73/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(i)

holistic :- 6 -: picture. The argument of the Ld. CIT(A) that the said decision is distinguished on the basis of being relevant to CUP method only and not TNMM is misplaced. The Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in principle has decided that in such situations, aggregation of transaction

Anand Nvh Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with consequences to follow as per determination of the grounds as above

ITA 705/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Nvh Products P. Ltd., Vs Dcit, F-3/5, Vasant Vihar, Circle-1(1), New Delhi – 110 057. New Delhi. Pan: Aaeca0297J

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh BhutaniFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

ground no. 5 to 7 are with regard to the issue if the TPO/DRP erred in considering bank guarantee rates as suitable comparable under CUP method for determination of ALP of the international transaction i.e. Stand-by Letter of Credit (SBLC) issued to foreign AE. 4. In regard to this ... charged no commission from its AE for the issuance of SBLC and, therefore, benchmarked the transaction using Comparable Uncontrolled Price (hereinafter referred as ‘CUP’) method. The TPO determined the commission fee to be charged at 4.01% by taking the average bank guarantee rates of various banks and adding 200 base

Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3337/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3337/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234CSection 234FSection 270A(1)Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

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

ACIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankit Gems Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2579/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ChokshiFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph

Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

with various other details. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer was of the view that the international transaction with AE should be benchmarked by applying CUP method and called upon the assessee to furnish segment wise details of AE and non–AE sales. It is observed, before the Transfer Pricing Officer ... diamond and diamond jewellery to maintain segment wise details of sales made to the AE and non–AEs for the purpose of applying CUP method. It was explained by the assessee that CUP method could not be applied as invoice of sale of AE and non–AE include different types

Schaeffler India Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (Jao-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle1(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

ITA 692/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT D.R. & Smt

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

erred in law and fact in not considering the facts of the case that TNMM method selected by the assessee should be rejected and CUP method should be Most Appropriate Method to determine the arm's length price separately. 5. The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, amend or alter

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Schaeffler India Ltd.( Erstwhile Luk India Pvt. Ltd)), Vadodara

ITA 299/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT D.R. & Smt

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

Schaeffler India Ltd.(A Successor of Luk India Pvt. Ltd)), Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) (Earlier ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur), Vadodara

ITA 275/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT D.R. & Smt

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 37