“CUP method”

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

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5533/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-14(2)(1) Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. India Debt Management P. Ltd. C-59, Platina, 'G' Block ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Bkc, Bandra (East)Mumbai 400051 Pan:Aabci4256N अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Uodal Raj Singh, Sr. Ar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta

observations suggesting that the identification of the “tested party” is imperative while applying other methods from comparison for transfer pricing and not while applying CUP method. Our non-consideration of the revenue’s Appeal in the present case, should not be seen as putting our seal on such observations

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

share. The aforesaid value of INR 10 per share was more than the value determined by applying external Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method. As per the valuation report obtained by the Appellant from an independent valuer, the value of one share of ECL was determined at INR 4.97 following ... Earning Capacity Value (PECV) Method, however, since same was coming as „Nil‟, it was ignored. During the assessment proceedings, the TPO rejected the external CUP Method adopted by the Appellant by giving incorrect reasoning. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant vehemently contended that the TPO does not have

Asst CIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

associated enterprises (AEs). In this regard, the learned AO and the Honourable DRP erred on the following grounds: 1.1. In using Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and while applying the CUP method, in:- 1.1.1. Not appreciating that during the previous year ended on 31 March 2011, the AES had also ... weighted average of all the trades for the purpose of benchmarking. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and applied CUP method. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer noted that assessee executed 79,624 clearing house trades during the year and on that basis applying the arithmetic

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 4(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

associated enterprises (AEs). In this regard, the learned AO and the Honourable DRP erred on the following grounds: 1.1. In using Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method and while applying the CUP method, in:- 1.1.1. Not appreciating that during the previous year ended on 31 March 2011, the AES had also ... weighted average of all the trades for the purpose of benchmarking. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and applied CUP method. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer noted that assessee executed 79,624 clearing house trades during the year and on that basis applying the arithmetic

S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Office No. Bw-3010 Circle 5(3), Vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics5514N Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt & Shri Sankit Chordia, Ars’ Revenue By : Shri Samuel Pitta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022

Associated Enterprises is same. Therefore, outstanding receivable, despite being an international transaction, no interest is required to be charged. As according to CUP method there is no difference between the Associated Enterprises transaction credit days and non Associated Enterprises credit period. 09. Ground no. 2 of interest disallowance, he submitted ... supported the orders of the lower authorities. On the issue of outstanding receivable he submitted that if assessee would like to take benefit of CUP method then assessee has to show the similar credit period allowed to the non Associated Enterprises on the similar time period. He further stated that

Hannover Millano Fairs Inida P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

Assessing Officer. In doing so, the Hon'ble DRP erred in upholding the action of the TPO in rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method adopted by the Appellant and adopting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method in determination of ALP. 1.2 Without prejudice ... facts, in brief, relevant to the adjudication of the issue raised in the present appeal are that Appellant had adopted Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions with its AEs. During the assessment proceedings, the Appellant was asked

3A Composites India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appealof the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reported between the party is the budget cost allocation and related expenses of ₹1,35,64,604/- which is benchmarked by the assessee adopting CUP method. Assessee was questioned. Assessee submitted that above payment have been made in pursuance of group master agreement copy of which was submitted on 12th ... Length Price of budged cost allocation and related expenses amounting to ₹1,35,65,605/- paid by the assessee and benchmarked adopting the CUP method, ALP of which is determined by the ld. TPO at Rs Nil. Before us, the assessee has filed paper book containing 159 pages

3A Composites India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appealof the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reported between the party is the budget cost allocation and related expenses of ₹1,35,64,604/- which is benchmarked by the assessee adopting CUP method. Assessee was questioned. Assessee submitted that above payment have been made in pursuance of group master agreement copy of which was submitted on 12th ... Length Price of budged cost allocation and related expenses amounting to ₹1,35,65,605/- paid by the assessee and benchmarked adopting the CUP method, ALP of which is determined by the ld. TPO at Rs Nil. Before us, the assessee has filed paper book containing 159 pages

Lintas India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

case and in law, the learned TPO, and AO and the Hon‟ble DRP have erred in rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price(„CUP‟) method, as the most appropriate method for benchmarking this transaction and computing the transfer pricing addition without applying any of the prescribed methods as provided under section ... payment of MNC services amounting to ₹2,17,03,792/-. The assessee has submitted that Global information services are benchmarked adopting CUP method stating that its fully loaded cost of salaries and related expenses incurred by the Associated Enterprises in providing GIS services to the assessee on actual basis

Lintas India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

case and in law, the learned TPO, and AO and the Hon‟ble DRP have erred in rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price(„CUP‟) method, as the most appropriate method for benchmarking this transaction and computing the transfer pricing addition without applying any of the prescribed methods as provided under section ... payment of MNC services amounting to ₹2,17,03,792/-. The assessee has submitted that Global information services are benchmarked adopting CUP method stating that its fully loaded cost of salaries and related expenses incurred by the Associated Enterprises in providing GIS services to the assessee on actual basis

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

behalf of its subsidiaries was a shareholder activity for which no charge is required. 7. The AO/TPO/ DRP erred in rejecting the internal CUP method and arm's length price of 0.35% p.a. adopted by the Appellant for benchmarking guarantee commission. 8. The Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP failed to appreciate that ... internal CUP method has been consistently followed by the Appellant and accepted by the Tribunal in the past. 9. Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 7, the AO/TPO/ DRP erred in computing the arm's length price of the financial guarantees given by the Appellant on behalf

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 1, Thane

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

Nagda Plant by comparing the export prices of the products sold to group companies and the third parties i.e. using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method It is prayed that the learned AO/TPO be directed to consider the international transaction of the Assessee as arm's length and accordingly ... internal TNMM as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction for export of goods from Thane Plant. Whereas, the TPO applied the CUP method for benchmarking international transaction of export of goods from Nagda Plant. Thus, the TPO vide order dated 20.01.2014 passed under Section 92CA

ACIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Merck Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8Th Floor, Dcit 7(2)(1) Pirojshanagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Merk Limited Acit Cir 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2616F Assessee By : Ms. Arativissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022

Rule 10B(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 („the Rules‟) ITA No.1525 & 1798/MUM/2016 M/s Merk Ltd;A.Y. 2011-12 (b) Incorrect selection of CUP method The Learned TPO erred in proposing and the Hon‟ble DRP further erred in considering the TPO‟s action of selection of Comparable Uncontrolled ... Price („CUP‟) method as most appropriate method for determining the arm‟s length price of the international transaction ,without appreciating that the purported use of CUP data was not appropriate in terms of Rule 10B(2) and 10B(3) of the Rules. (C) Cherry Picking Without prejudice to above

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8Th Floor, Dcit 7(2)(1) Pirojshanagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Merk Limited Acit Cir 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2616F Assessee By : Ms. Arativissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022

Rule 10B(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 („the Rules‟) ITA No.1525 & 1798/MUM/2016 M/s Merk Ltd;A.Y. 2011-12 (b) Incorrect selection of CUP method The Learned TPO erred in proposing and the Hon‟ble DRP further erred in considering the TPO‟s action of selection of Comparable Uncontrolled ... Price („CUP‟) method as most appropriate method for determining the arm‟s length price of the international transaction ,without appreciating that the purported use of CUP data was not appropriate in terms of Rule 10B(2) and 10B(3) of the Rules. (C) Cherry Picking Without prejudice to above