“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

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 701/BANG/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37

lack of comparable transaction, ex-facie the company cannot be considered as a comparable with the assessee. The adoption of CUP method is also not as per law in the absence of comparable transaction. Hence in the impugned case, there is no comparable identified as required

Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, RG- 7 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Convertible Debentures ('CCDs') and interest paid on CCDs. The Assessee has benchmarked the transaction of interest paid on CCDs using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price ('CUP') method using BSE, NSE and NSDL as databases. The TPO however rejected the benchmarking analysis conducted by the Assessee and undertook a fresh benchmarking analysis ... international transaction of payment of interest on CCDs. While making an adjustment of Rs.16,45,67,968/- the TPO noted that since the CUP method adopted by the assessee company required strict comparability, the data used by the assessee was not correct, and in line with the terms of CCDs

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

disregarding the ALP and rejecting the methodical benchmarking analysis carried out by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing Study Report using Comparable Uncontrolled Transaction ("CUP") Method undertaken in accordance with Section 92C and Section 92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") read with Rule ... length by the appellant in its TP Study by comparing it with 4 uncontrolled comparables (though of multiple years) by CUP method. However, the TPO was of the view that the comparison with non-convertible debentures of years other than the relevant FYs was not valid comparisons and therefore

Vena Energy Patan Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 255/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

Rs.62,50,000 each, partly paid up and carried an interest @ 14.70% p.a. In the TP study, the assessee has chosen Comparable Uncontrollable Price [CUP] method as the most appropriate method (MAM) for determination of the arm’s length price [ALP]. Accordingly, the assessee applied certain filters to arrive ... filters applied by the TPO for choosing the comparables and also IT(TP)A Nos.252 to 255/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 21 rejecting the internal CUP method and the regulatory rate. The DRP upheld the various filters applied by the TPO and the comparables thus arrived at by the TPO. With

Vena Energy Kn Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 254/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

Vena Energy Mh Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 253/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

Vena Energy Fatanpur Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.254/Bang/2022 is partly allowed, while

ITA 252/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144(3)Section 92C

despite the evidences furnished to the contrary. 11.The Learned AO / Learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") method adopted by the Appellant and the comparable agreements furnished without IT(TP)A No.202/Bang/2021 Page 14 of 38 appreciating that the same was obtained from reliable ... Singapore (NGTPS). The rate of commission paid by the assessee was 7% of the value of products sourced. The assessee benchmarked the same under CUP method by selecting certain comparable companies, which had paid sourcing commission in the range of 5% to 12%. Accordingly, the assessee claimed the payment

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 728/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

length price [ALP], except for cost contribution charges. The TPO considered the cost contribution charges as a separate class of transaction and applied CUP method as the most appropriate method for computing the ALP and made an estimate towards this adjustment and determined the ALP as NIL on the ground ... that the contents of thereof were found to be "amply supportive" of the assessee's claim. The TPO had rejected TNMM and adopted CUP method for determining ALP. The Tribunal held that the TPO IT(TP)A Nos.728/Bang/2017 Page 8 of 17 remained 'oblivious' to the fact that Rule

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

length. b. With respect to the transaction of import of from material from clichés SA Mexico AE, assessee adopted CUP method taking the foreign AE as a tested party compared with the prices charged by the comparable companies and stated that the prices charged to the assessee is less than

Thyssenkrupp Industiral Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H. Jamshedji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 40

contention of the Appellant that the reimbursement of expenses are paid on actual basis without any mark-up and further erred in rejecting the CUP method followed, without applying any method himself. 4. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(3)(1), erred in disallowing provision for costs incurred ... which was initially incurred by the associated enterprise and later reimbursed by the assessee is the Comparable Uncontrolled Price („CUP‟) for the reimbursement, accordingly CUP method was adopted as the most appropriate method for benchmarking this transaction. 6. The Assessing Officer made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer

Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd ( Formerly Known As J M Morgan Stanley Securities P. Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacj 4998 F Morgan Stanley India Company Addl. Cit, P. Ltd. Range 4(3), 18F/19F One Indiabulls Centre, Room No. 635, 6Th Floor, Tower 2-B, 841, Vs. Jupiter Mills Off Senapati Bapat Aaykar Bhavan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

trades executed with the AES. 1.3 In not accepting the Appellant's contention that even if the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP Method) is applied for determining the ALP then ITA Nos.2206 &2320/Mum2011 Morgan Stanley India Co. P. Ltd; A.Y. 05-06 the comparability analysis should consider an adjustment ... least 50% vis-à-vis brokerage charged to independent clients. 1.4 In not accepting the Appellant's contention that even if the CUP Method is applied for determining the ALP then the comparability analysis should be undertaken considering both overseas and domestic independent clients. 1.5 In confirming the learned AO/TPO

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

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2206/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)

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

ITA 2788/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

erred in computing an alternative Transfer Pricing adjustment based on Transfer Pricing adjustment based on comparison of export prices comparison of export prices (using CUP method) for th (using CUP method) for the product sold to group companies e product sold to group companies and third parties. The Appellant prays

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

ITA 2628/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

rejecting the aggregated Transactional Net Margin Method (`TNMM') analysis undertaken by the Appellant in its TP Study and instead using the Comparable Uncontrollable Price (`CUP') method to determine the arm's length price of this international transaction. d) That the learned DRP erred in law and in facts, in upholding ... Uncontrolled Price (CUP) or TNMM. The TPO held that the transaction of rendering intergroup services has to be separately analyzed and he applied the CUP method as the MAM. The TPO thereafter held that there was no evidence that services were rendered by IT(TP)A No.2680/Bang/2017 Page

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1382/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvan Oord Dredging & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Marine Contractors Bv Income-Tax (International 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Taxation)-4(3)(1) Plaza, 166 Cst Road, 16Th Floor, Air India Kalina, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400098 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaach3500M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: K.C. Kanojiya

Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

towards hire charges / lease rentals for charter hire of 10 dredgers. The assessee has benchmarked the aforesaid transactions with the AEs by selecting CUP method, wherein, the valuation certificate dated. 16th February 2010 obtained from an independent valuer viz. Van Woerkom, Nobels & Ten Veen, Netherland was applied as a CUP ... cannot be taken in the impugned assessment year with regard to the benchmarking of lease rentals paid for charter hire of dredgers by applying CUP method. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the grounds raised by the assessee with a direction to the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to accept

The Boston Consulting Group (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1870/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 234DSection 274

time and billing software. The assessee has paid Rs.2,31,54,274/- as licence fee to BCG Holding Corporation, USA. The assessee has adopted CUP method to benchmark this transaction by taking AE as tested party. The prices of similar software module licensed by Oracle Corporation was used as comparable ... assessee contended that the AO / TPO has not prescribed any method for determination of ALP; therefore, the ALP determined by the assessee by using CUP method should be accepted. The Ld.Senior Counsel further stated that the issues in grounds 1, 2, & 3 are squarely covered by the decision

J.P. Morgan India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1502/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 14A

next issue relates to the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of provision of broking services for futures and options trades. The TPO has adopted CUP method for determining Arms Length Price of transactions. Though the assessee has raised a ground challenging the adoption of CUP method, the assessee ... press the same at the time of hearing. Accordingly, adoption of CUP method is being upheld. 7.1 The assessee had provided broking services in F & O segment to both related and unrelated parties. The assessee had earned commission @ 0.0471% from unrelated parties and 0.0344% from related parties. 17 J.P.Morgan India

Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd. (Asol) As A Successor to Accenture Serivces Pvt Ltd (Aspl), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8008/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

risks taken on by the comparable companies Transaction of royalty payment 15. 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 at 1% of revenue ... 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. 18. Without prejudice to the Ground I6and 17 above, erred in not accepting the alternate comparables