“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

Oriental Aromatics Ltd, Mumbi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6331/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92(1)

Appellant. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law confirming the action of the learned TPO and learned AO is considering CUP Method as the most appropriate method for applying rates of interest in pure finance transaction as comparable cases. 6. Without prejudice to above, the learned ... erred in fact and in law confirming the action of the learned TPO and learned AO in considering CUP method without applying an adjustment as per Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). 3. To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material facts need

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

international transaction of provision of engineering consulting/ design services and by not accepting the economic analysis based on the comparable uncontrolled price (`CUP') method undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules. 5. Ld. AO/ TPO/ DRP have erred in applying ... operating in nature in the computation of margins of the companies identified as comparables. 11. Without prejudice to the Appellant's contention that the CUP method adopted by the Appellant in its TP documentation is the most appropriate method to benchmark its international transaction of provision of engineering consulting/ design

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

intangibles for which the royalty is paid. 3.4 The learned TPO and learned AO erred in rejecting the adoption of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method by the Appellant with respect to justification of ALP of Royalty transaction. 3.5 The Learned TPO and learned AO erred in interpreting that Transaction ... learned TPO and the learned AO erred 4.5.1 in considering the fixed deposit rate of 10% to compute the notional interest rate. The CUP method followed by the TPO is not reflective of an arm's length interest rate since the fixed deposit rates obtained are not appropriate CUP rates

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

lower authorities erred in holding that the IS Charges and TNMM corporate service charges shall be benchmarking separately under method the CUP method and in rejecting the aggregation approach adopted by the Appellant under the TNMM method. 12. Double- 12.1. The lower authorities erred in disallowing the entire amount ... 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 the AE for which the assessee made

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7157/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

karte basis. The Bench held that in case the Transfer Pricing Officer is able to demonstrate that the consideration for similar service under the CUP method is nil, he can very well do so. However, when the assessee benchmarks the transaction under TNMM basis, unless the Revenue authorities can demonstrate ... called Trinity Procurement GmbH (“Trinity”). This transaction of payment of commission for procurement services was benchmarked by the assessee by adopting Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as Most Appropriate Method (MAM) in the TP study report. The assessee considered itself as a tested party. Since, the commission rate charged

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

made by the AO/TPO to Rs.12,00,43,750/- on account of profit split method, ignoring that the TPO rejected A.Y.2008-09 the CUP method after giving detailed reasons in the order passed u/s 92CA(3). 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... made by AO/TPO to Rs.12,00,43,750/- on account of profit split method, ignoring the fact that TPO has rejected the cup method after giving detailed reasons in the order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act.. At the very outset, the Ld. Representative of the assessee

M/S Endemol India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6780/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of 1601, Grandeur Veera Desai Income Tax, Central Circle Road Andheri, West, Vs. 16(1), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce5452G M/S Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of 1601, Grandeur Veera Desai Income Tax, Central Circle Road Andheri, West, Vs. 16(1), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.2.2022

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty, DR

value of services is not possible considering uniqueness of programme content. Endemol India Pvt. ltd.; AY 12-13 He therefore held that the CUP method is not suitable in absence of information considering the nature of the services availed. He also held that the Transactional net Margin Method

DCIT 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Tl, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1546/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmangoldman Sachs (India) Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 522, Aayakar Bhavan, 951 A, Rational House, Vs M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Dy.Cit-7(1)(1), Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Room No. 522, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, Vs 951 A, Rational House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aafca6819F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate Sh. M. Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

price under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP), inter alia, on following grounds: a) Making an upward adjustment to commission earned from AEs under the CUP method, by considering only top 10 offshore clients as comparables and disregarding commission from other foreign and on shore clients in the absence ... seen that in order to determine the arm’s length price for broking services rendered by the assessee to its AE, CUP method has been accepted by both the parties. The issue, it is seen has been discussed by the DRP at pages 18 to 23 in para

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1115/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Bateman Engineering (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 749/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2016 Assessmentyear: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)

expenses 5,14,37,467/- Recovery of expenses 53,18,628/- Total Rs.24,73,19,422/- 5. The assessee, in its TP study, selected CUP method as against appropriate method. The TPO did not accept the same and he took the view that TNM method is the most appropriate method

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Bateman Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 469/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2016 Assessmentyear: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)

Bharat Vijaykumar Jain (HUF), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 246/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

companies. (ii) Not granting adjustment for working capital and risk differential; and 5. In the TP analysis performed by the assessee, it had followed CUP method for computing the arms length price. The TPO has rejected the assessee’s TP analysis and proceeded to compute ALP under the TNMM. Hence

Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 361/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.361/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Level 14 & 15, Concorde Towers, Ub City, 1 Circle - 3(1)(1), Vittal Malya Road, Ub City, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aadcn 7689 L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

during the year were as follows: Specified Most Remarks Sl. Amount domestic appropriate No. (Rs.) transaction method 1 Purchase of 12,29,33,814 CUP Method The purchase of raw materials by Raw Materials assessee from Nutrikraft India Pvt Ltd (NIPL)is at same price as purchased by NIPL from

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

reasons for upholding the adjustment. 17. The learned AO and the learned TPO have erred, in law and in facts, by incorrectly applying the CUP method for determining the ALP of the impugned transaction and overlooking the fact that TNMM is most appropriate under the facts and circumstances since ... rate of guarantee commission, it is noted that the arm's length price of guarantee commission was determined by the TPO by applying CUP method and the arithmetic mean of 1.5% of the guarantee commission charged by the HSBC Bank in the range of 0.15 to 3% was taken

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

proposed adjustment of the entire amount on account of intra group services paid to the AE by applying CUP method to determine the NIL mainly on the following reasons:-  The assessee has failed to provide any cogent evidence to demonstrate that services were received by the Applicant ... form. He, accordingly, made an adjustment of Rs. 243,304,705/- on account of transition support service charges, taking it to be nil using CUP Method, as the assessee company had failed to demonstrate as to how/why a third party would pay for such services under uncontrolled conditions to satisfy

M/S. Randox Laboratories India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2576/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2576/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Randox Laboratories India Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.191-195 & 246-250, Circle 5(1)(1), Bommasandra-Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru. Kiadb Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 105. Pan: Aadcr 0074 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishna Upadhyaya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR-OSD), ITAT, Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92ASection 92CSection 92F

outset, the Transfer Pricing Officer had opined that the transaction of purchase of finished goods for resale was to be bench marked as per CUP method. We IT(TP)A No.2576/Bang/2019 Page 13 of 23 are unable to understand why the Transfer Pricing Officer abandoned bench marking under CUP

Bbc World Service India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 666/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12

assessee, TPO noticed that the assessee has benchmarked the provision of programme content services to the AE by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. By applying as CUP, a similar transaction entered by another group company with a third party, the assessee claimed that the price charged ... length. However, the TPO did not accept the economic 3 analysis of the assessee. He was of the view that the comparability under CUP method requires greater degree of similarity and preparation of TV programme, which was used as CUP, cannot be compared with the services provided by the assessee