“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

Franklin Wardcorpp India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/DIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1279/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

justified in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that either the Cost Plus method or the Comparable Uncontrol Price („CUP‟) Method should have been applied in arriving at the ALP of the concerned transactions with its Associated Enterprise. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... compared to the sale of similar products supplied to other parties. Therefore, the foreign entity should be taken as a tested party and the CUP method is the most appropriate method. 07. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that if the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method is to be applied there

Sas Institute (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1567/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Sas Institute (India) Private Tax, Circle 3(3) Limited Apeejay House, 3 Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 3, Dinshaw Wachha Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3149K Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U.Matkari, DR

Section 140Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

learned Authorized Representative submitted that identical issue was considered where the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has not given any reason in rejecting the CUP method and resale price method adopted by the assessee in respect of royalty and other international transaction. He extensively referred to paragraph no.14 of the order ... further referred to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel for A.Y. 2013-14, wherein in Para no.11.11, the use of the CUP method was even to be the most appropriate method. Similarly, for A.Y. 2014-15, the direction of A.Y. 2013-14 are followed. Therefore

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 6560/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ms. Aastha &

Section 144CSection 35Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

associated enterprise for providing this guarantee facility. Therefore assessee was issued notice stating that the corporate guarantee fee is required to be benchmarked applying CUP method. Ld AO also stated that why the guarantee fee should not be charged in assessee’s own case as charged for assessment year

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 7166/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ms. Aastha &

Section 144CSection 35Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 2069/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ms. Aastha &

Section 144CSection 35Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal for assessment year 2012 –

ITA 1745/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ms. Aastha &

Section 144CSection 35Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92F

DCIT-CC 5(2), Mumbai vs. Jetair Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3050/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

From the working of the ORC commission made by the AO, it is seen that the AO has tried to apply Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method to determine the ALP of commission income earned by the appellant from Jet Airways (India) Ltd It is a general rule that while applying ... CUP method, the comparison should be made between similar entities and similar conditions to arrive at the ALP of a particular transaction. As discussed above, the AO has not taken into consideration various aspects such as turnover, area of territorial operation, method of fixation of ORC rates, bank guarantee

Sona Blw Precision Forgings Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi

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

ITA 525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

proceedings related to Assessment Year 2012-13 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by directing the Assessing Officer to apply CUP method and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh determination. The ld. counsel further submitted that following the decision in Assessment ... 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 foreign currency loans. The LIBOR rate is therefore the appropriate uncontrolled comparable to be applied to the assessee's transactions

Alliance One Industries India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 68/VIZ/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

TNMM International Inc, unmanufactured USA tobacco and its by- products on FOB basis 4. Alliance one Purchase of software 2,46,875 CUP Method International AG, License Switzerland 5. Alliance one Advance received 24,52,59,000 TNMM International AG, against sales Switzerland 6. Alliance one Corporate Guarantee NIL CUP

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

risks taken on by the comparable companies. Transactions of royalty payment 18. Erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant using CUP method for benchmarking the royalty payment to AE, and instead determining the arm's length price to be 1% of revenues on an ad hoc basis ... rejecting all the external royalty agreements that were identified by the Appellant as comparables to determine the arm's length price under the CUP method, by giving ad hoc and arbitrary reasons. 21. Without prejudice to the Ground 18 and 19 and 20 above, cred in not accepting the alternate

Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4062/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4062/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 15 Dsidc, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-10(2), Phase-Ii, Scheme-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg2938H Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated Xx.02.2019 Passed By The Ao U/S 254/143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. Pancham Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

assessee u/s 92CA(3). 1.2 Rejecting aggregation-approach under TNMM for benchmarking international transaction at entity level. 1.3 Confirming to benchmark under CUP Method the transaction of Royalty payment even when this is justified under TNMM. 2 Gruner India Pvt. Ltd. 1.4 Failing to appreciate that when CUP cannot ... opinion that no definitive ruling ought to be given at this stage. As to whether in the event of de-segregation the CUP method is the most appropriate rather than TNM method should in our opinion be left open for consideration depending on the determination of the issue of aggregation/de-segregation

Lubrizol India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 586/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1464/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400705. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.586/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ National Faceless Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Assessment Centre, Delhi. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1576/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit, Circle-3(4) बिधम/ Plant 9/3, Thane-Belapur Mumbai. Vs. Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl0126H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. Urvi Mehta/Abdulkadir Jawadwala Revenue By: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. UrviFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(1)

page Nos. 15 to 22 of the TP Order). Thus, the TPO arrived at a Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.25,23,659/- under the CUP method the details of which are given hereunder: After receipt of Transfer Pricing order, the AO passed the Draft Assessment order vide order dated ... benchmarking the International transaction of export of chemical additive to its AE’s and did not accept the action of TPO/DRP adopting CUP Method as the MAM. It was pointed out by the Ld. AR that this Tribunal in other assessment year

M/S. Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1464/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth/Ms. UrviFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M Rai (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(1)

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5459/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Section 14A

proceeded to work out the mean ALP rate on the basis of above factors. The assessee was taken as the tested party and External CUP method was used for benchmarking the aforesaid M/s. JSW Steels Ltd. transaction. External CUP, as per Ld. TPO, could be the Bank Prime Lending Rate