← 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

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

cause notice (SCN) dated 17 September 2018 rejected the TNMM analysis (aggregated approach) adopted by the assessee. Instead, the TPO chose to apply the CUP method and thereby proposed three third party royalty agreements (with an ALP of 1.50%). This SCN was responded to vide 33 Samsung India Electronics. submission ... dated 9 October 2018, wherein the assessee raised its objections against 1) application of the CUP method while rejecting TNMM (Aggregated approach) and 2) the stark dissimilarities in the three third party royalty agreements v/s the assessee’s license agreement. The TPO, after taking note of the appellant's arguments

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 346/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

erred on facts and in law in determining the arm’s length price of international transaction of payment of royalty at NIL disregarding the CUP method appropriatelyapplied by the appellant relying upon comparable instances, not correctly applying CUP method in terms of Rule 10B(1) of the Income Tax Rules ... erred on facts and in law in disregarding the comparable uncontrolled transaction considered for benchmarking the transaction of payment of royalty applying CUP method, in the Transfer Pricing Report. 2.4 That the DRP/ TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that non-charging of trademark

Goodyear India Ltd, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

erred on facts and in law in determining the arm’s length price of international transaction of payment of royalty at NIL disregarding the CUP method appropriatelyapplied by the appellant relying upon comparable instances, not correctly applying CUP method in terms of Rule 10B(1) of the Income Tax Rules ... erred on facts and in law in disregarding the comparable uncontrolled transaction considered for benchmarking the transaction of payment of royalty applying CUP method, in the Transfer Pricing Report. 2.4 That the DRP/ TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that non-charging of trademark

Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are allowed subject to the above directions

ITA 8135/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumartupperware India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Spl. Range 9, 204 – 206, Tolstoy House, New Delhi. 15, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaact3770D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 26.10.2018 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Ld. Drp For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily determining arm's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") Method. In doing so, Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred by: 11.1. ignoring/rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons ... account of payment of management services. In doing so, the Hon'ble DRP/Ld. TPO/Ld. AO erred in applying CUP method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10B of the Rules and determining the arm's length price as 'Nil' in relation to aforesaid international transaction. 13. That

Benetton India P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 496/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 496/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 25B, Block Infocity Vs. Tax, Circle : 4 (2), Sector : 34, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana.Pan:Aaacd1013F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, Sh. Ankul Goel & Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advs Department By: Shri Mahesh Shah, [Cit] D.R. & Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, ShFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

length price for payment of royalty. In doing so, the Ld. TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in: - 3.1 Rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Method ('CUP') method used by the Appellant to benchmark the royalty transaction based on surmises and incorrect findings and ignoring the fact that the royalty transaction has been ... assessee from its authorized sub licenses. For the purpose of determining the Arm's Length Price for payment of royalty, the assessee has adopted CUP method. Three comparable agreements were selected for royalty payment which averaged out to be 6.08%. Since the effective royalty paid by the assessee during

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Benetton India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

ITA 7389/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 496/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 25B, Block Infocity Vs. Tax, Circle : 4 (2), Sector : 34, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana.Pan:Aaacd1013F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, Sh. Ankul Goel & Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advs Department By: Shri Mahesh Shah, [Cit] D.R. & Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, ShFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

length price for payment of royalty. In doing so, the Ld. TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in: - 3.1 Rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Method ('CUP') method used by the Appellant to benchmark the royalty transaction based on surmises and incorrect findings and ignoring the fact that the royalty transaction has been ... assessee from its authorized sub licenses. For the purpose of determining the Arm's Length Price for payment of royalty, the assessee has adopted CUP method. Three comparable agreements were selected for royalty payment which averaged out to be 6.08%. Since the effective royalty paid by the assessee during

Cap Gemini Technology Services India Limited(Formerly Known As Igate Global Solution Limited)-M/S Patni Telecom Solutions Pvt Ltd, Changed Name to M/S.Igate Information Services Private Limited Merged With Igate Global Solutions Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward - 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 446/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.446/Hyd/2015 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11) Cap Gemini Vs. Income Tax Officer Technology Services Ward 2(1) India Ltd(Formerly Igate Hyderabad Global Solutions Ltd) Hyderabad Pan:Aacca4255G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C(2)

appreciating the facts obtained in the case of proposing adjustment without applying any specified method. (b) In not appreciating that on the basis of CUP method, no interest is recoverable from AEs since no interest is charges/recovered on delayed recoveries from Non-AE's also. (c) In not appreciating

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

transactions it was more than the agreed rate and only in four transactions the realized rate was at agreed value. The TPO rejected CUP methods for the following reasons: “(1) The transactions are numerous in number (589 transactions) in the AE segment alone; (2) In respect of deemed ... also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Cable and Wireless Network India (P) Ltd. in which CUP method was held to be MAM in legacy agreement. 8.3 The Ld. D.R has reiterated findings of the Ld. TPO in rejecting the CUP

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Fysolate Technologies, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 182/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Mithilesh SannareddyFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Margin Method”) as the Most Appropriate Method. The assessee compared the prices of the product from 5 various quotations received from third parties under CUP Method. The assessee compared the average rate of material sold by its Associated Enterprise [“AE”] to the assessee with quotation for similar products and concluded ... PBDIT / OR (%) 60.44 PBDIT / OC (%) 152.75 5. The Ld. TPO examined the analysis made by the assessee under CUP method and TNMM and observed that as per the 6 OECD Guidelines which defines “Tested Party” should have the following attributes: 1. Available of reliable and accurate data for comparison

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Elitecore Technologies Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1728/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1728/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy.Cit Elitecore Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) बनाम/ (Now Merged With Sterlite Ahmedabad Technolgies Limited) V/S. 904, Silicon Tower, B/H. Pariseema Building Off. C.G. Road Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaace 6815G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 04/09/2019, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Dcit Vs. Elitecore Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 92C

made by the TPO in respect of determining Arm’s Length interest rate @ 5.42% per annum using Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method 3. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of product certification expense 3.1. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate ... which states for adoption of most appropriate method and also applying of adjustment if the same could have material impact of the price under CUP method. He also stated that the TPO’s benchmarking cannot be accepted because of geographical differences, non-comparability of ratings or the limitation of rating

Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 930/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.930/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd. The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Near Village Iyava Ward-1(1)(3) Sanand Viramgam Highway Ahmedabad V/S. Tal: Sanand Dist: Ahmedabad – 382 170 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacm 9898 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Captioned Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Ahmedabad Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.143C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act) Order Dated 12/12/2015 Passed In Pursuance Of Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (In Short “Drp”) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 10/12/2014. Bosch Rexroth India Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

form of reduction in the interest rate on account of guarantee and the transaction sought to be propagated by the assessee as comparable adopting CUP method was not comparable. Accordingly, the transaction of the AE giving guarantee on Bosch Rexroth India Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2010-11 4 behalf

Stryker India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 817/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarstryker India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 22 (2), C-5, Sda Commercial Complex, Delhi. Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aaecs2513F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 11.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 28.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Ld. Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 270ASection 271Section 92C

settled that LIBOR being an internationally recognized rate is the appropriate benchmark interest rate which conforms to the arm’s length standard under the CUP method for benchmarking receivables/loans denominated in foreign currency. The LIBOR rate is therefore the appropriate uncontrolled comparable to be applied to the assessee’s transactions

Deutsche Equities India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 8354/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Programme Trade. TPO noted that for benchmarking the International Transaction relating to CH Trades, the Assessee had adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [for short ‘CUP Method’] as the Most Appropriate Method. Even though the Assessee had undertaken CH Trades with non-AEs/third parties, the Assessee rejected the aforesaid transactions ... stock broker does not take the onus of funding or settling the trade. In the Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR), the Assessee had adopted CUP Method as the Most Appropriate Method, inter alia, stating that the Assessee and its AEs had undertaken comparable transactions with unrelated enterprises. The comparable transactions

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Equities India P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 8033/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Programme Trade. TPO noted that for benchmarking the International Transaction relating to CH Trades, the Assessee had adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method [for short ‘CUP Method’] as the Most Appropriate Method. Even though the Assessee had undertaken CH Trades with non-AEs/third parties, the Assessee rejected the aforesaid transactions ... broker does not take the onus of funding or settling the trade. 8.6. In the Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR), the Assessee had adopted CUP Method as the Most Appropriate Method, inter alia, stating that the Assessee and its AEs had undertaken comparable transactions with unrelated enterprises. The comparable transactions

Je Energy Ventures Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92B

DCIT 4.23 In order to determine the arm's length price of guarantees, the BEPS plan gives guidance on 5 methods namely: 1 CUP method 2 Yield approach 3 Cost approach 4 Valuation of expected loss approach 5 Capital support method 4.24 The Ld. TPO has applied the cost approach

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2196/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

Alathiyur Thermal Plant of the assessee for captive consumption. This unit was enjoying exemption u/s 80-IA. The assessee benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee ... sugar industry. The TPO comparison of tariff rates by regulatory commission was not derived from actual transaction which was a primary requirement under CUP method and hence it was not a valid comparison. The Ld. TPO did not question the CUP method adopted by the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1897/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

Alathiyur Thermal Plant of the assessee for captive consumption. This unit was enjoying exemption u/s 80-IA. The assessee benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee ... sugar industry. The TPO comparison of tariff rates by regulatory commission was not derived from actual transaction which was a primary requirement under CUP method and hence it was not a valid comparison. The Ld. TPO did not question the CUP method adopted by the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay

The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 958/CHNY/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

Alathiyur Thermal Plant of the assessee for captive consumption. This unit was enjoying exemption u/s 80-IA. The assessee benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee ... sugar industry. The TPO comparison of tariff rates by regulatory commission was not derived from actual transaction which was a primary requirement under CUP method and hence it was not a valid comparison. The Ld. TPO did not question the CUP method adopted by the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay

The Ramco Cements Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 957/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

Alathiyur Thermal Plant of the assessee for captive consumption. This unit was enjoying exemption u/s 80-IA. The assessee benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee ... sugar industry. The TPO comparison of tariff rates by regulatory commission was not derived from actual transaction which was a primary requirement under CUP method and hence it was not a valid comparison. The Ld. TPO did not question the CUP method adopted by the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay

DCIT, Madurai vs. The Ramco Cements Limited, Rajapalayam

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1363/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

Alathiyur Thermal Plant of the assessee for captive consumption. This unit was enjoying exemption u/s 80-IA. The assessee benchmarked the same using CUP method. The electricity generated by the unit was transferred at Rs.6.52 per unit on the basis of which deduction u/s 80IA was claimed by the assessee ... sugar industry. The TPO comparison of tariff rates by regulatory commission was not derived from actual transaction which was a primary requirement under CUP method and hence it was not a valid comparison. The Ld. TPO did not question the CUP method adopted by the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay