← 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

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 7220/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

adjustment to the arm's length price of the international transaction of export of finished goods (Manufacturing segment) by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') Method instead of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM1) and thereby erred in computing transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,08,95,543/-. It is prayed that ... deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/TPO erred in considering two methods (TNMM and CUP Method) for calculating Arms' Length Price of international transactions and making adjustment based on the method on which Transfer Pricing adjustment to the Assessee was higher

DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hind Aluminium Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1904/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

erred in concluding that the Arm's Length Price calculated by the assessee was in accordance with the universally acceptable CUP method. In doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the CUP method should be applied on an aggregate basis, however, considering the nature of business

Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 72/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 73

With respect to brokerage services, assessee has received brokerage fees of ₹181,49,41,232/-. Assessee adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled price Method [CUP method] as MAM . Assessee submitted that the average broking charges of the assessee to the Associated Enterprises in respect of cash equity trade is 0.25% and assessee

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 45/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Citigroup Global Markets (India) Private Limited The Dcit 1402, 14Th Floor, Circle -4(1), First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaecs7234F Citigroup Global Markets (India) The Jcit (Osd) Private Limited 4(1)(1) 1402, 14Th Floor, Room No. 640, 6 Th Floor, First International Financial Aaykar Bhavan, Centre, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Ars Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 73

With respect to brokerage services, assessee has received brokerage fees of ₹181,49,41,232/-. Assessee adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled price Method [CUP method] as MAM . Assessee submitted that the average broking charges of the assessee to the Associated Enterprises in respect of cash equity trade is 0.25% and assessee

Sumitomo Corporation India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 486/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

addition 6. The Ld. DRP / TPO erred in considering the average rate of commission earned in non- AEs segment by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") method to determine arm's length commission rate for indenting transactions with the AEs (other than those which are covered by the Bilateral Advance Pricing ... entered into by the Appellant in a proper manner, as has been upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT in earlier years, rather than the CUP method, the Ld. TPO and AO have erred in respect of the following while computing the protective adjustment amounting to INR : including the free

Gurner India Private Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle 10(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 796/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 796/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 M/S. Gurner India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessmetn 714, International Trade Centre, Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi-110019 Pan : Aadcg2938H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92C

certain judicial precedents and specially the Mumbai Bench judgment in UCB India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2009] 317 ITR 292 (Mum) concluded that the CUP Method for analyzing the arms length nature of fee paid by the assessee to its associated enterprise will be more appropriate method and thereafter ... Accordingly, draft assessment order u/s 144C was served upon which assessee for which assessee raised objection before DRP challenging the applicability of CUP Method instead of TNMM and applying 3% royalty rate, without undertaking any economic analysis and without explaining the manner of determining ALP of impugned transactions

Delphi Automotive Systems (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 1361/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaaptive Components India P. Ltd, Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Formerly Known As Delphi Of Income-Tax, Automotive Systems P. Ltd), Circle-7(1), P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacd0226E

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(2)

third parties as comparable uncontrolled price for the purpose of benchmarking the delay in receipt of receivables on transaction undertaken with associated enterprises, applying CUP method. 6.7 Without prejudice, while applying CUP method, the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in rejecting interest rate computed on the Aptiv Components ... Johnson Ltd. in ITA No.1291/2014 dated 03.04.2017 reported in 80 taxmann.com 269 (Bombay). Even though the Ld. TPO had mentioned that he is following CUP method as the most appropriate method for benchmarking this transaction, in effect, he had not adopted CUP method as per Rule 10B of the Rules

Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Noida

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7937/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., Versus Dcit, Circle-1, Plot No. 1A, Sector-16A, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcd1821C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. K.M. Gupta, Advocate Sh. Shruti Khimta, A.R. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92A

Dominos Pizza and @ 3.5% to Dunkin Donuts. The assessee benchmarked the payment of franchise fee to the aforesaid entities by adopting Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method and in the transfer pricing study report claimed the transaction relating to franchise ... purely adhoc manner without following any approved method. He submitted, the assessee has benchmarked the payment of franchise fee to Dunkin Donuts by applying CUP method and has selected independent comparables having similar transactions, who have paid royalty/franchise fee at higher rates of 4%, 5% and 7%. Thus, assessee

Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1654/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

reassures and affirms that the general principle of plurality is not abandoned or discarded. 82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction

Mondelez India Foods P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7104/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

based on an adhoc estimation of salary and the number of man hours. The Ld AR submitted that the TPO has not followed the CUP method but has arrived at the ALP on some estimation. It was further submitted that the determination of ALP cannot be done except under ... accordingly, it was submitted that the transaction is within arm’s length price. The TPO rejected the submissions of the assessee and applied CUP method where he has applied the amount / rate of Rs.6,250 to be the arm’s length compensation for the services rendered. The TPO made

Malco Energy Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte SethnaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115J

A.Y.2015-16 14. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lower Authorities erred in applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") method as MAM and applying a reference index price obtained from the TIPS database which merely provides an estimated quotation price and therefore does not reflect ... Malco Energy Ltd.; A.Y.2015-16 determine the arm‟s-length price and concluded that for determining the arm‟s-length price Comparable Uncontrolled Price method [ CUP] method cannot be applied due to non-availability of transaction level data through both internal and external sources. Therefore, it adopted a new method

DCIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2077/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

bank of Nova Scotia on behalf of its associated enterprises is at arm‟s-length. Therefore the assessee stated that it has adopted cup method and for comparability has shown internal comparables. 08. The assessee has also given a performance guarantee outstanding of ₹ 147.87 crores and the year ... that basis, the assessee has benchmarked these corporate guarantees at the rate of 0.55%. Therefore, there was no dispute with the method i.e. CUP method as well as the comparables selected as average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers. As average corporate guarantee charged by the bankers

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1597/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

bank of Nova Scotia on behalf of its associated enterprises is at arm‟s-length. Therefore the assessee stated that it has adopted cup method and for comparability has shown internal comparables. 08. The assessee has also given a performance guarantee outstanding of ₹ 147.87 crores and the year ... that basis, the assessee has benchmarked these corporate guarantees at the rate of 0.55%. Therefore, there was no dispute with the method i.e. CUP method as well as the comparables selected as average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers. As average corporate guarantee charged by the bankers

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

bank of Nova Scotia on behalf of its associated enterprises is at arm‟s-length. Therefore the assessee stated that it has adopted cup method and for comparability has shown internal comparables. 08. The assessee has also given a performance guarantee outstanding of ₹ 147.87 crores and the year ... that basis, the assessee has benchmarked these corporate guarantees at the rate of 0.55%. Therefore, there was no dispute with the method i.e. CUP method as well as the comparables selected as average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers. As average corporate guarantee charged by the bankers

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3272/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

average of the various guarantee commission rates paid by the assessee company to various bank. The assessee adopted the Comparable Controlled Price [ CUP ] method as The Most Appropriate Method [ MAM] . The learned transfer-pricing officer ITA Nos. 3272/Mum/2015 & 1656/Mum/2014 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.; A.Y. 09-10 examined this ... that basis, the assessee has benchmarked these corporate guarantees at the rate of 0.55%. Therefore, there was no dispute with the method i.e. CUP method as well as the comparables selected as average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers. As average ITA Nos. 3272/Mum/2015 & 1656/Mum/2014 The Great Eastern Shipping

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

bank of Nova Scotia on behalf of its associated enterprises is at arm‟s-length. Therefore the assessee stated that it has adopted cup method and for comparability has shown internal comparables. 08. The assessee has also given a performance guarantee outstanding of ₹ 147.87 crores and the year ... that basis, the assessee has benchmarked these corporate guarantees at the rate of 0.55%. Therefore, there was no dispute with the method i.e. CUP method as well as the comparables selected as average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers. As average corporate guarantee charged by the bankers

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1656/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of The Great Eastern Shipping Income-Tax, Co. Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

average of the various guarantee commission rates paid by the assessee company to various bank. The assessee adopted the Comparable Controlled Price [ CUP ] method as The Most Appropriate Method [ MAM] . The learned transfer-pricing officer ITA Nos. 3272/Mum/2015 & 1656/Mum/2014 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.; A.Y. 09-10 examined this ... that basis, the assessee has benchmarked these corporate guarantees at the rate of 0.55%. Therefore, there was no dispute with the method i.e. CUP method as well as the comparables selected as average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers. As average ITA Nos. 3272/Mum/2015 & 1656/Mum/2014 The Great Eastern Shipping

Willis Towers Watson India Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), New Delhi

ITA 2064/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234CSection 92C

argued that based on the assessee’s non- submission of documents/details, the TPO has made upward adjustments by rejecting the assessee’s CUP method and adopted TNMM. The ld. DR argued that in earlier year, the assessee had established its case by submission of the invoices to AEs as well ... argued that the assessee company has failed to provide the details of the independent contracts/functions/ services rendered to different AEs and unrelated parties, hence, CUP method followed by the assessee was rejected by the TPO and instead TNMM was selected as Most Appropriate Method. 10. We find that

Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2161/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kr. Bharati, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 37(1)Section 92C

prescribed method under Rule 10B of Income Tax Rules, 1963. 2.5 That the assessing officer/TPO erred on facts and in law in applying CUP method for benchmarking the transaction of payment of corporate charges without placing on record any comparable data for comparison. 2.6 That the assessing officer/TPO erred ... made to the AE, the TPO rejected the entity wise benchmarking undertaken by the assessee in its transfer pricing study using TNMM, applied the CUP method and determined the ALP as Nil. The ITAT admitted additional evidences and set aside the matter to the TPO for de novo consideration. Later

Ntt India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/Tax/ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 722/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ntt India Pvt. Ltd. Addl/Jt/Dy./Acit/Tax/Ito 1701-1704, B-Wing, One Bkc Level, National Faceless Assessment Centre 17 G Block, Plot No. C-65, Vs. Delhi Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 2145 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta : Shri Sunil A Umap & Revenue By Shri Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2023 : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)

rejecting the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) analysis adopted by the Appellant to benchmark its international transactions and applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') Method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 1.5 The Hon'ble DRP / Ld. TPO / Ld. AO has erred ... also the details of actual cost incurred by the AE for rendering the said services. The TPO bench marked the said transaction using CUP method as the most appropriate method thereby rejecting TNMM as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP. The ld. TPO further held that the assessee