← 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

Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Gurugram, Haryana, India vs. The Deputy Or Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram, Haryana, India

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per the directions given to AO/TPO above

ITA 4439/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Vs Dcit, 16Th Floor, Building No.5, Circle-1(1), Block-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram. Phase Iii, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aapca2671M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate; Ms Reema Grewal, Ca; & Ms Snigdha Gautam, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ld. Ao’) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. The Assessee Is Part Of The Multinational Group, Arabian Trading Group Which Is Based Out Of Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia & Is Engaged In Generating, Developing, Accumulating, Distributing & Supplying Electricity By Setting Renewable Energy Power Plants. This Is The First Year Of The Assessment Of The Assessee. During The Year, The Assessee Has Undertaken The Following International Transactions:- International Transactions Transfer Pricing Method Total Value Of International Transactions (In Inr) Issue Of Compulsorily Other Method 2,44,77,26,400 Convertible Debentures (Ccds) Interest On Ccds Comparable Uncontrolled 46,52,90,098 Price (Cup) Method Issue Of Equity Shares Other Method 45,04,31,700

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Issue of compulsorily Other method 2,44,77,26,400 convertible debentures (CCDs) Interest on CCDs Comparable Uncontrolled 46,52,90,098 Price (CUP) Method Issue of equity shares Other Method 45,04,31,700 3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the material on record ... equity. Since there is no interest payment associated with equity instruments, the ALP of interest payment is determined to be NIL, by using the CUP method. 6. The assessee filed detailed submissions vided Form 35A before the DRP and the primary arguments of the assessee was against re-characterization

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, Mathura Road, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 433/DEL/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

treat a particular expenditure as a separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction ... TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP ) method was sought to be applied. Here, this court concurs with the assessee that having accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 430/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

treat a particular expenditure as a separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction ... TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP ) method was sought to be applied. Here, this court concurs with the assessee that having accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 2035/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

treat a particular expenditure as a separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction ... TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP ) method was sought to be applied. Here, this court concurs with the assessee that having accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate

DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1267/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

treat a particular expenditure as a separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction ... TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP ) method was sought to be applied. Here, this court concurs with the assessee that having accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 9000/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

treat a particular expenditure as a separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction ... TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP ) method was sought to be applied. Here, this court concurs with the assessee that having accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

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

ITA 7424/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

treat a particular expenditure as a separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction ... TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP ) method was sought to be applied. Here, this court concurs with the assessee that having accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

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

ITA 6838/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

treat a particular expenditure as a separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction ... TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP ) method was sought to be applied. Here, this court concurs with the assessee that having accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate

M/S Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 991/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

treat a particular expenditure as a separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction ... TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP ) method was sought to be applied. Here, this court concurs with the assessee that having accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate

DCIT, Noida vs. M/S. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

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

ITA 1969/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

treat a particular expenditure as a separate international transaction. The relevant findings read as under: ―82. There is considerable tax literature and text that CUP Method, i.e. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, RP Method, i.e. Resale Price Method and CP Method, i.e. Cost Plus Method can be applied to a transaction ... TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP ) method was sought to be applied. Here, this court concurs with the assessee that having accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Atul Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1774/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

settled law that transactions between the related parties cannot be taken as based for bench marking of the transaction by following the CUP method. In view of the above, show cause as to why the bench marking done by you should not be rejected. In view of the above, also ... show cause notice was issued. The first transaction pertains to purchase of goods from Amal Ltd. In this case, the Ld. TPO rejected the CUP method applied by the appellant and adopted TNMM method as most appropriate method (MAM). The appellant filed objection before

Lear Automotive India P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

ITA 554/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2346/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

nature of Concur subscription expenses of Rs. 11,57,681/- and Corporate Service Charges of Rs. 7,19,34,662/-. Accordingly, TPO adopting the CUP method and in line with judicial precedents, determined the ALP of the aforesaid payments at NIL. Consequently, a total adjustment ... Concur expenses and Corporate Support Service (CSS) charges at NIL. It was argued that the TPO and DRP wrongly applied the CUP method or "Other Method" without bringing on record any single comparable transaction. Under Rule 10B(1)(a) and Rule 10AB of the Income Tax Rules, it is mandatory

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8260/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. Dcit, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7Th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana Pin: 122 001 Aabch1376E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra and AnkurFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

business Support Services, Purchase of traded goods and Purchase of raw-material, traded goods and goods purchased on trial related to telecom equipment) and CUP method regarding Availing of Technical Services. Ld. TPO in para 35 summarized the segmental accounts submitted by the assessee. Finance cost not attributed

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Snf India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

ITA 210/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] Vs. Dcit - Circle – 3(1) Income Tax Office Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.209 & 210/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 35,50-92-35, Sankaramatam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh, Beside Reliance Fresh, Nearby Main Road Madhuranagar, Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Plot No. 19 Ponnuru Village, Parawada Mandal Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 01.09.2025 08.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रवीश

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Snf India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

ITA 209/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] Vs. Dcit - Circle – 3(1) Income Tax Office Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.209 & 210/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 35,50-92-35, Sankaramatam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh, Beside Reliance Fresh, Nearby Main Road Madhuranagar, Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Plot No. 19 Ponnuru Village, Parawada Mandal Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 01.09.2025 08.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रवीश

Honda R&D (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4930/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekhonda R&D (India) Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), Technical Centre Plot No.2, Delhi. Sector 3, Imt Manesar, Gurugram – 122 052 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabch3071N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Order : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

length price as 'Nil' claiming application of Other Method. 5.6 Erroneous directions issued by the Hon'ble DRP pertaining to application of CUP method by the Ld. TPO, wherein the Ld. TPO has in fact applied Other method to benchmark the impugned international transaction. The directions appear

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Group Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

consequently the AO have erred in facts and in law in holding that Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") method cannot be applied to the facts of the case. In holding so, the TPO, the DRP and consequently the AO have grossly erred in facts in stating that ... adequately compensated for the activities carried out, there is no question at all for treating that agreement as a comparable for applying CUP method for determining ALP for the transaction. The onshore agreement surely was not at arm’s length since no independent entity would agree to carry out work

Ebaotech India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 6359/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: The Authorities Below Are That The Assessee Is A Subsidiary Company Of The Ebao Group Which Is Globally Diversified In Insurance Software Having Its Headquarters In Shanghai, China & The Operations Of The Group Are Located In Many Countries Including India, Australia, China, Malaysia, Japan & Singapore, With Extensive Coverage In Insurance Software & Technology.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

same AE, therefore, as per the applicant’s Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR), the transaction was benchmarked using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method which was based on the sample invoices to support the benchmarking. 10. Ld. DRP observed that applicant has failed to provide the necessary documentation to explain ... benchmarking analysis based on CUP method. Ld. DRP was of the opinion that the data and information base of the applicant do not satisfy the strict comparability criterion under CUP Method for determining ALP for the export and import services to the AEs. It was further observed that the Transactional

Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 1390/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: CA Abhiroop BhargavFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 92BSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Provisions of the Act. Accordingly, in view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that rejection of the benchmarking done by assessee under CUP method on the part of the TPO and adopting ‘Another Method’ by the TPO is highly arbitrary and unjustified. The entire thrust