← 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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 198/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

interest @ 14.70% p.a. In the TP study, the assessee has IT(TP)A Nos.195 to 198/Bang/2021 Page 4 of 26 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 ... assessee raised objections before the DRP with regard to the filters applied by the TPO for choosing the comparables and also 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 Mh Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 197/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

interest @ 14.70% p.a. In the TP study, the assessee has IT(TP)A Nos.195 to 198/Bang/2021 Page 4 of 26 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 ... assessee raised objections before the DRP with regard to the filters applied by the TPO for choosing the comparables and also 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 Fatanpur Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 196/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

interest @ 14.70% p.a. In the TP study, the assessee has IT(TP)A Nos.195 to 198/Bang/2021 Page 4 of 26 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 ... assessee raised objections before the DRP with regard to the filters applied by the TPO for choosing the comparables and also 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, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 195/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

interest @ 14.70% p.a. In the TP study, the assessee has IT(TP)A Nos.195 to 198/Bang/2021 Page 4 of 26 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 ... assessee raised objections before the DRP with regard to the filters applied by the TPO for choosing the comparables and also 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

Altico Capital India Private Limited ( Formerly Clearwater Capital Partners (I) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 424/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 250

enterprise carried interest at the rate of 12%, during the year under consideration. The assessee benchmarked this international transaction by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price („CUP‟) method as the most appropriate method. Further, the assessee Altico Capital India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.424/Mum./2018 and 11/Mum./2018 considered the lending rates offered ... other hand TPO adopted the average of the PLR of Indian banks as it would be the most appropriate comparable while applying the CUP method. We notice that the assessee argues that investment in its company would be inherently risky due to following reason that it is in start

Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)- 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Clearwater Capital Partners India Private Limited (Now Known As Altico Capital India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 11/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 250

enterprise carried interest at the rate of 12%, during the year under consideration. The assessee benchmarked this international transaction by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price („CUP‟) method as the most appropriate method. Further, the assessee Altico Capital India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.424/Mum./2018 and 11/Mum./2018 considered the lending rates offered ... other hand TPO adopted the average of the PLR of Indian banks as it would be the most appropriate comparable while applying the CUP method. We notice that the assessee argues that investment in its company would be inherently risky due to following reason that it is in start

M Pallonji Shipping P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5875/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem.Pallonji Shipping Pvt Vs. Dcit – 5(2)(2) Ltd.46A Veetrag Mumbai Chambers, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm4615L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr.K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Vatslaaa Jha.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Dr.K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Ms.Vatslaaa Jha.CIT.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

determination is not in accordance with principles of TP Regulations. 5. The TPO find that the assessee has applied the Comparable uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as a Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determination of ALP rate of interest. The TPO has discussed on the internal/external CUP method transactions at page

Clsa India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2385/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Clsa India Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 4(1), 8/F Dalamal House, Room No.640, Aayakar Nariman Point, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai–400 021 Mumbai–400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc2262K Assessee By : S/Shri Mukesh Butani, Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar, Mr. Harsh R Shah, Shreyash Shah Revenue By : Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Mukesh ButaniFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / TPO/CIT(A) has erred in applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the MAM for benchmarking the international transaction of brokerage commission received by the Appellant from its AES, failing to appreciate the following: a. There ... business of equity broking, it is concerned with the brokerage income earned as a whole rather than the rate thereof. However, while applying cup method, it is the price of the product or services, which is to be considered rather than the value resulting as a result of transacting products

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 5 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 7001/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M M GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

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 0.40% p.a. adopted by the Appellant for benchmarking guarantee commission. 2 Assessment Year: 2015-16 8. Without prejudice ... aforesaid observations we find no reason to dislodge the ALP of corporate guarantee determined by the assessee at 0.43% p.a by adopting Internal CUP method. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the determination of the ALP of the corporate guarantee

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 252/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.252/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mindteck India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A.M.R. Tech Park, Block 1, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 4(1)(1), No.664, 23/24, Hosur Main Road, Begur, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 068. Pan : Aaach 1072 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

other words, the learned Counsel prayed that the ALP of this international transaction should be determined adopting the internal CUP method. In this regard, we find that no such statement was made by the assessee before the lower authorities and therefore we deem it fit and proper to remand this ... issue to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration. The assessee will furnish the required details before the AO/TPO adopting the internal CUP method and the TPO will decide the issue afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 32. Apart from the above grounds which were pressed

M/S. Walvoil Fluid Power (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1839/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

other hand submitted that the DRP stated that the TPO computed arm's length interest under CUP method. Under CUP the interest that is charged between unrelated parties under similar circumstances would be taken as arm's length interest. The issue that is examined was the interest rate at which

M/S. Outsourcepartners International Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 35/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

held that the outstanding receivables from the AE is in the nature of loans and calculated the interest on receivables from AE by following CUP method. The TPO has considered the RBI Master Circular No.8/2010-11 dated 1.7.2010 on External Commercial Borrowing [ECB] which specifies the ceiling of 6 months LIBOR

M/S Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3368/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.3368/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Pritech Park, Block Nok.12, 3Rd Floor, 5Th Ward – 1(1)(1), Floor, B-Wing & 4Th Floor, B-Wing, Bengaluru. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru-560 103. Pan : Aaaco 9467 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92B

learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in selecting an ad hoc interest rate while selecting that Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") Method as the Most Appropriate Method ("MAM") for determining the arm's length interest rate chargeable on receivables having accepted the Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM ... months was allowed as credit period to collect the use on invoices. It was also contended that the TPO erred in adopting CUP method as the most appropriate method in determining ALP. It was contended that the rate of interest was adhoc interest rate without brining on record any comparable

M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 181/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

transaction cannot be determined using TNMM and proceeded to calculate the ALP in respect of this transaction separately using CUP method. The TPO concluded that the assessee’s submissions are nothing more than a description of certain alleged services received by it from its AE and Page

Asst. CIT 32 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kapu Gems, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6713/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Comm. Of Income Tax 32(2), M/S Kapu Gems, 720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, E Tower, Ec-3021, Bharat C-41 To C-43, G Block Bkc, Vs. Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Bandra East, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadfk 3266 D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Deharia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2022

For Appellant: Mr. K.A. Vaidyalingan, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Deharia, DR
Section 271GSection 92DSection 92D(3)

expected the assessee to have carried out the basis the TPO expected the assessee to have carried out the benchmarking by following CUP method. We are of the considered benchmarking by following CUP method. We are of the considered benchmarking by following CUP method. We are of the considered view ... that as the comparison by view that as the comparison by internal CUP method could only be CUP method could only be made if two lots of diamonds were similar in size, colour, shape made if two lots of diamonds were similar in size, colour, shape made if two lots

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 259/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(11)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT

M/S Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 35/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 92C

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. TP adjustment relating to manufacturing segment : 4. In the manufacturing segment, the tax payer applied internal CUP method as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for import of parts for manufacture of personal computers. The relevant portion of the TP document is reproduced below ... Operating Profit (65,70,77,791) Net operating profit margin based on sales (%) -7.59% 6. The TPO rejected the CUP method and proceeded to apply TNMM as MAM. The TPO made fresh search of comparables and arrived at OP/OR of 4.83%. The TPO did not consider the submission

M/S. Brillio Technologies Private Limited (Formerly Known As Collabera Solutions Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 128/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Naresh K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M S Nethrapal, Addl. DIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] for determination of ALP. The TPO rejected the tax payer’s TP study stating that the assessee has used internal CUP method to arrive at the conclusion that SWD SP No.5/Bang/2022 & IT(TP)A No.128/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 10 services provided is at arm’s length ... that CUP method is applicable only in a scenario where the exact nature of the transactions can be replicated. On this basis, the TPO proceeded to make a fresh search of comparables whereby he arrived at median margin of 26.1% and made a TP adjustment of Rs.17

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

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

O/O DCIT 3(3) (1), Room No. 668, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai vs. M/S. Sikka Ports & Terminals Ports Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2139/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

yield spread approach adopted by the assessee has been wrongly rejected, there is no need to deal with this clearly defective application of CUP method. No such inputs have been referred to, or relied upon, by the authorities below. 8. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind