“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

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2308/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

international transaction. Further, the learned CIT(A) while determining the arm's length price of the said international transaction has erred in using the CUP method by taking the third party rates for sale of Rifampacin as on the date of sale of Rifampacin to associated enterprises without making appropriate

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

Clsa India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 6232/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Clsa India Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit Ltu 29Th Floor, Centre 1 World Trade Formerly Known As Clsa India Ltd. Vs. 8/F Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Centre, Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2262 K (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarpekar, Shri Paras Savla : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Sr. Ar & Respondent By Shri A. K. Ambastha, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024

Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

case and in law, the learned TPO / learned Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) learned CIT(A) has erred in applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP') method as the MAM for benchmarking the international transaction of brokerage commission received by the Appellant from its AEs, failing to appreciate the following ... higher rate of commission from overseas non AE’s compared to that of its AE’s for both the services. The ld. TPO proposed CUP method for bench marking the said transaction. The assessee contended that the nature of service rendered to each clients varied depending upon the corporate access

ACIT., Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 349/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.312 & 313/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Hetero Labs Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.348 & 349/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2-18-19) The Assistant Vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Commissioner Of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle – 3(4), Pan : Aaach5506R Hyderabad. अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

equally. In summary, as the assessee did not charge interest for equal delay in realisation of Non-AE exports, under internal CUP method, the assessee is justified in not charging interest on delayed receivables from foreign AEs. Credit Free Period:- Without prejudice to the above argument that non-charging

ACIT., Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Hetero Labs Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 348/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Hetero Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 313/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Hetero Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 312/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Skaps Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 595/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35DSection 35D(2)Section 43BSection 92Section 92C

appropriate method (MAM) adopted by the appellant ignoring submissions of the appellant. 4. Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that TPO has rightly rejected CUP method for benchmarking purchase transaction by considering it as incorrect method ignoring fact that TPO himself has accepted CUP as MAM for same ... most appropriate method (MAM) adopted by the assessee while totally ignoring the submissions of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the rejection of CUP method for benchmarking purchase transaction was not justified on the part of the TPO as the TPO himself has accepted CUP as most appropriate method

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bunge India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4781/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Rs.40,46,74,637/- u/s 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer, by upholding the CUP method adopted by the assessee ignoring the fact that the TPO had applied TNMM method which has been upheld by the ITAT in the assessee ... Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. u/s 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer, by upholding the CUP method adopted by the assessee ignoring the fact that the TPO had applied TNMM method which has been upheld by the ITAT in the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bunge India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4780/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Mankind Pharma Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

part of revenue that the assessee seeks to make out a new case by changing the stance on benchmarking from TNMM to CUP method with the aid of additional evidences. In this regard, the ld. counsel pointed out that the assessee did not specifically benchmark its SDTs through any specific ... Revenue that by filing such additional evidences, the assessee is seeking to make out a new case of benchmarking from TNMM to CUP method which allegedly runs contrary to TP Study Report in which the assessee has itself taken stance for non applicability of CUP method. Statedly, the assessee

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 4786/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Range -3, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 4765/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Hongkong & Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 7824/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7336/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2004-05) & ITA No.4765/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2005-06) The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior Vice President Tax, India Area Management 5th Floor, Hongkong Bank Building, 52/60, MG Road Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Appellant) Vs. The Joint Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai 1st Flo

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed wherein

ITA 7336/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Srnior (Vice President)

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. Atul Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

ITA 446/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr.Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

TNMM) to justify this transaction as being at ALP. The TPO, however, found that in earlier years, the assessee had applied comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method for benchmarking similar transaction. Therefore, he issued a detailed show cause notice questioning the assessees benchmarking of the transaction and stating that CUP ... ITAT in its order as under: “.......To arrive at the Arm's Length Price the assessee has chosen to adopt the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as prescribed under sec.92C of the Act. Undisputedly, both the sides have chosen CUP method as the most appropriate method and there

Culver Max Entertainment Private Lmited ( Formerly Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (Successor of Taj Television India Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7210/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Sony Pictures Networks Asst. Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income-Tax, (Successor Of Taj Television Circle 16(1) India Private Limited) Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Interface 7, 4Th Floor, Off Malad Room No. 467, Link Road, Malad (W), M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct5103D Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

assessee has retained 19.77% of distribution revenue and remitted 80% to Taj TV Limited, Mauritius. For the distribution network, assessee adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and stated that assessee in India has remitted 80.23% of collection to M/s Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 11-12 Taj Mauritius ... distribution income of 14% and remitted 86% to the Associated Enterprises. The assessee treated the same transaction as a single transaction. It adopted CUP method as the most appropriate method and M/s Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 11-12 selected Pakistan entity and Nepal entity, which entered into