“ CUP method ”

Asstt. CIT v. MSS India (P.) Ltd.

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.

32 SOT 132 · 2009 · ITAT

10 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

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.

43 Taxmann.com 191 · 2014 · Reported

CIT v. Eicher Motors Ltd.

Bank guarantee commission prices are not comparable to external CUPs for benchmarking corporate guarantees in transfer pricing.

293 ITR 464 · 2007 · High Court

CIT v. Star Paper Mills Ltd.

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.

172 Taxmann.com 391 · 2025 · High Court

ACIT v. MSS India (P) Ltd.

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.

123 TTJ 657 · 2009 · ITAT

Star India P. Ltd. v. ACIT

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.

317 ITR 292 · 2009 · ITAT

Gharda Chemicals Ltd. v. Oy. CIT

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.

39 SOT 93 · 2010 · ITAT

ITA 1140/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11

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

Wills Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Towers Watson India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of 511/512, Solitaire Corporate Park, Income Tax, Circle-11(3)-1, 151, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Floor Aayakar Andheri (East) , Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 2955 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 92CSection 92C(4)

Appellant 4. erred in 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 rejecting the CUP method applied by the Appellant as the most appropriate method, without giving cogent ... submitted that Ground No. 4, 5 and 6 are related to selection of most appropriate method. He submitted that assessee selected Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method however same was rejected by the Ld. Assessing Officer. In final assessment order, the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

ITA 2031/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2013-14

group must be considered in its entirety. It was further contended that in absence of comparable rates available in the public domain under the CUP method for similar license fees and management fee, the TNMM must be considered as Most Appropriate Method (MAM) to be benchmarked with other similar companies ... that the TPO and the DRP have erred in determining ALP of the transaction at `Nil’ without following the due procedure in applying the CUP method as prescribed under Rule 10B(1)(a) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Further, it was submitted that there is no provision under

Bostik India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

ITA 837/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

ITA 452/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2012-13

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

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R

Section 143(3)

manufacturing segment consisted of manufacturing and distribution of desktops and note books. The assessee had benchmarked the international transactions in manufacturing segment under internal CUP method. The TPO adopted TNM method and accordingly made transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.22.62 crores. The Ld. DRP gave partial relief to the assessee ... tribunal, vide its order dated 6.3.2020, restored the matter to the file of the TPO with the direction to apply CUP method as most appropriate method and accordingly determined arm’s length price. The Ld A.R submitted that the co-ordinate bench had examined the Most Appropriate Method adopted

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

services' and accordingly treated the payment of 'Management fees' as not at arm's length and made an ALP adjustment by analyzing it under CUP method. The taxpayer using the TNMM method had aggregated the transaction of 'Management fee' with 'Marketing support services' segment for analysing the international transactions

Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 7116/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92(2)Section 92BSection 92C

same. M/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited; AY: 13-14 6.2. The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer has erred in not appreciating the fact that CUP method was the most appropriate method in the facts of the case. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in confirming the same. 6.3. Without prejudice ... above, the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer has erred in not appreciating that CUP method was the most appropriate method in the facts of the case in as much as internal CUP in the form of quotations of third parties in respect of the same projects were available and that

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1579/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR

Section 1Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 801CSection 80ISection 921

methods of determining the ALP of a corporate guarantee as discussed above and the availibilty of data, I am of the view that the CUP method with adjustments offers the least complicated approach with maximum data available. Hence, this is selected as the Most Approprate Method. As per the details

M/S. Steer Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2071/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.290, 4Th Main, 4Th Phase, Circle – 6(1)(2), Peenya Industrial Area, Nagawara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aabcs 8840 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Susan D. George, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144CSection 92(1)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

independent. We also find that in the transfer pricing study at page 29 paragraph 8.11, the Assessee has given reasons as to why CUP method was not suitable in its case. It has been stated therein that the extruders parts and elements are manufactured based on specific order. The products

Accc 30, Mumbai vs. United Shippers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

ITA 3036/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

assessee]. Assessee has received a sum of ₹ 62,670/- on account of corporate guarantee charges at the rate of 0.5%. Assessee adopted CUP method as the most appropriate method and stated that assessee itself has taken a bank guarantee from third parties at a commission rate of 0.5% per annum

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1106/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

raised by the assessee is challenging the rejection of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) used by the assessee and adopting external Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee ... Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., also TNMM method adopted by the assessee and proceeded to benchmark the guarantee transaction using external CUP method. The ld. TPO observed that during the year, overseas branches of the assessee executed inter-bank guarantees / indemnities, against which the assessee issued guarantees

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

paper book) as being the alleged arm’s length price and imputed an interest income of Rs.548,04,95,014 by following the CUP method. 7.2 Aggrieved, the assessee filed objection before the DRP. The DRP upheld the view of the TPO and held that based ... such a transaction between independent enterprises is at all hypothetically possible, the arm's length interest on such funding will be 'nil' under the CUP method. 24 IT(TP)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/s.United Spirits Limited. Further, it was held that if there has to be an arm's length consideration under

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd. Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 606/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

ITA 605/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

bring the comparable companies to conclude as to how the assessee’s payment for intragroup services was found to be at Rs. ’Nil’ using CUP method. 3.9. We find from Form 3CEB vide its Annexures in pages 31-36 of the paper book wherein the assessee clearly stated the list

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1254/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Newedge Broker India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 229/BANG/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Givaundan(India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Ltu Cr 1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 229/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Givaudan (India) The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 26, 2Nd Cross, Income Tax, Jigani Industrial Area, Ltu, Bangalore – 562 106. Circle – 1, Vs. Pan: Aaacv7454J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sumeet Khurana, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit- Revenue By I Date Of Hearing : 11-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaiit Is Submitted That The Main Appeal Was Heard By This Tribunal & Order Was Passed On 02/08/2019. However Grounds 6 & 7 Were Not Adjudicated Independently For Assessment Year 2010- 11. The Assessee Preferred Mp No.15/Bang/2020 Requesting For Adjudication Of These Grounds. 2. Accordingly The Present Appeal Is Fixed For Hearing For Adjudication Of Following Grounds: “6. That The Learned Ao & The Learned Panel Erred Both In Facts & Law In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Tpo Of Making An Adjustment To The Transfer Price Of The Appellant In Respect Of The Payment Of Royalty By Rs.27,67,42,242, Holding That The International Transaction

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CA

length principle envisaged under the Act and in doing so grossly erred in: 6.1. Upholding the approach of the learned TPO on Applying the CUP method as the most appropriate method despite acknowledging and accepting the selection of TNMM by the Appellant in demonstrating the arm's length nature ... benefit of the Appellant. Based on above, the learned TPO treated the arm's length price ("ALP") o f royalty as NIL by applying CUP method and proposed an adjustment of INR 276,742,242. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel (learned Panel') upheld the findings of learned

Ingersoll Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri , CIT(DR)

ITA 4608/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

proceedings made an adjustment towards this 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 of this particular class of transaction. While making the TP adjustment applying CUP method ... 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 remained 'oblivious' to the fact that Rule 10B(1)(a) stipulates 'comparable' and 'uncontrolled' transactions while

Peri (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD) Circle-13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Jt. Commissioner Of Peri (India) Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd), Circle- 1406 Dlh Park S V. Road, 13(1)(2), Room No. 218, 2 Nd Goregaon West, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 062 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecp4115E Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

adjustment on the international transaction of payment of interest on trade credits to its AE and computing the ALP at NIL by adopting Internal CUP method; 7. erred in ignoring the contractual terms of the Appellant with its AE in respect of charge of interest post availing interest period

M/S Lenovo India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2833/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

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

Appellant 2.2.1. The Hon’ble DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in law by rejecting the application of Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method selected as the most appropriate method (“MAM”) by the Appellant for benchmarking the international transaction of import of raw materials in relation to manufacturing segment ... comparable uncontrolled transaction prices which are similar comparables to each other cannot be taken as the arm’s length price under the internal CUP method. 2.2.3. The Hon’ble DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in law and on facts in concluding that the Appellant has adopted industry average

Hasham Traders, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1/Bang/2021 Assessment Year:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R