“CUP method”

Tpg Growth II Makets Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

thereby making a TP adjustment to INR 71,64,92,650. In doing so, the Ld. TPO/Ld. AO/Ld. DRP erred in: a) Disregarding CUP method as adopted by the Assessee for determination of ALP of sale of shares of QNPL, thereby ignoring the third-party transactions entered into by SIPL ... shall be determined by applying the Most Appropriate Method out of the following six methods: (a) Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (For short ‘CUP Method’) (b) Resale Price Method (RPM) (c) Cost Plus Method (CPM) (d) Profit Split Method (PSM) (e) Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) (f) Such other method

Jiostar India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16 (1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1013.26 crore on this score for the immediately preceding assessment year, 2014-15. It applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for demonstrating that the international transaction of acquiring the BSB Rights was at Arm’s Length Price (ALP). For doing so, the assessee adopted ... transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that as against the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method applied as the most appropriate method for benchmarking this transaction in the immediately preceding year, the assessee invoked the `Other method’ in its Transfer pricing study

Lintas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

With regard to the contention of the Ld.AR that the ALP cannot be determined at Nil, the Ld.DR submitted that the TPO has applied CUP method and has accordingly arrived at the ALP to be Nil for the reason that no independent party would have paid for such services ... have categorically held that the learned transfer pricing officer in determining the arm‟s-length price at Rs. nil of the services has adopted cup method, therefore, all those decisions are not of relevance for deciding the issue before us. 021. When the issue was raised by way of objection

DCIT -5(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed

examine judicial precedents wherein rate of arm’s guarantee fee was determined by the Tribunal. The TPO finally concluded that Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method with adjustments could be adopted as the Most Appropriate Method for benchmarking the transaction of giving guarantee as the same offers least complicated approach with ... Appellant had reported, inter alia, into 43. following international transactions: Sl.No Nature of transaction Amount (INR) Method 1 Corporate Guarantee 2,71,90,399 CUP Method (commission charge) 2 Corporate Guarantee Nil Other Method (commission not charge) 43.1. TPO noted that the Appellant had given guarantee on behalf

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. India Debt Management Private Limited, Mumbai

INR.70,08,89,164 /- computed at the rate of 14% per annum. 5.1 The Assessee had benchmarked the transaction by using Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method taking the credit rating of the Assessee–company as the basis. The Assessee had adopted Standard & Poor’s (S&P) Corporate Rating Criteria ... nature of the interest rate (all-in-rate) applied on FCDs issued to AE, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (hereafter referred to as the "CUP method") was first considered. The CUP method utilises comparable market prices for the inter-company finance activities performed by IDM, by making reference to unrelated

Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

action of rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant for the provision of consultancy services, Rejection of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method 5. erred in accepting the learned TPO's contention of rejecting the CUP method applied by the Appellant as the most ... consulting services from its AE amounting to Rs.99,27,601 to be Nil by rejecting the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the Appellant using the CUP method; Payment made towards cost allocations on account of intra-group services received 12. erred and upholding the learned TPO's action of determining

Unilever India Exports Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, -CC 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Charge @ 1% of estimated turnover and it has paid Total Central Service Fees of Rs.11,65,31,532/-. The assessee company has chosen external CUP method as MAM for determination of ALP for underlying transaction. In Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR), the Assessee company has compared royalty rate as available ... ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited 13. The ld AR in rebuttal submitted that the assessee has done a proper bench marking using CUP method and has chosen external comparables having agreements for intergroup services and accordingly concluded that the price paid by the assessee is within arms length

Unilever India Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Central Circle - 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Charge @ 1% of estimated turnover and it has paid Total Central Service Fees of Rs.11,65,31,532/-. The assessee company has chosen external CUP method as MAM for determination of ALP for underlying transaction. In Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR), the Assessee company has compared royalty rate as available ... ITAs 2107 & 208/Mum/2022 Unilever India Exports Limited 13. The ld AR in rebuttal submitted that the assessee has done a proper bench marking using CUP method and has chosen external comparables having agreements for intergroup services and accordingly concluded that the price paid by the assessee is within arms length