← All Phrases

“cost plus method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C204 judgments

The decision most relied on for cost plus method is CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (367 ITR 730), cited in 120 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on cost plus method

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.
367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court
120
citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

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.

Brigade Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
33 Taxmann.com 618 · 2013 · ITAT
11
citing judgments

A company engaged in outsourced ITES activities can be excluded as a comparable if a significant portion of its activities were outsourced, resulting in an abnormally low employee cost.

Judgments citing cost plus method

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 177/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(3)

polished diamond were at arm's length. As the assessee has transactions both on purchase as well as sales, neither RPM nor Cost Plus Method can be applied in its case. The assessee was also requested to produce complete breakup of both the transactions in terms of quality as well

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 176/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(3)

polished diamond were at arm's length. As the assessee has transactions both on purchase as well as sales, neither RPM nor Cost Plus Method can be applied in its case. The assessee was also requested to produce complete breakup of both the transactions in terms of quality as well

De Diamond Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Rewari vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1109/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

MSIL). As far as the international transaction relating to purchase of traded goods, the assessee benchmarked it for transfer pricing analysis applying Cost Plus Method (CPM) by treating the overseas Associated Enterprise (AE) as the tested party and the price paid to the AE was claimed

Abbott India Ltd (As Successor to Solvay Pharma India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1705/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Abott India Limited Addl. Cit-Range 7(2) Unit 3-4, Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020 Pan No. Aaacu 9269 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

TNMM is a "method of last resor and should be adopted only when the standard method (CUP, Resale Price Meth d ad Cost Plus Method) cannot be reasonably applied. The standard (transaction) methods have an inherent edge over the profit method (TNMM) in most situations and wherever both methods ... 21st amendment) Rules, 2001 has provided five methods consisting of, comparable uncontrolled Price method (CUP), Resale Price Method (RPM), Cost Plus Method (CPM), profit split method (PSM) Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). With effect from 01-04-2012 one more method i.e. any other method has been prescribed. However under

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

justify the above international transactions to be at arms length. International Method used/Basis of Associated Enterprise transactions justification Receipt of Software Sasken China Cost Plus Method ("CPM") Development Services Rendering of Sales and Sasken Inc CPM Marketing Services Receipt of Software Development Services Sasken Japan CPM and Receipt of Sales

Brinks India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Brinks Arya (India ) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7071/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

contemplates that the arms length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by comparable uncontrolled price method; resale price method; cost plus method; profit split method; transactional net margin method or such other method as may be prescribed by the Board. Hence, the TPO is bound

Diastar Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 8(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5313/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D Hande
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

Appellant to Non-AEs in Europe as the basis for determining ALP of the sales made to AEs in USA by using cost plus method as the most appropriate method. The approach adopted by the TPO was rejected by the Tribunal and issue was remanded back to the TPO holding ... adjustment is made and the matter has to be considered in right perspective. 9.1 We observe that the assessee has applied Cost Plus Method which has been accepted by TPO but in fact as it appears from the order passed by TPO, that he has adopted internal CUP method when

Raymond Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl C.I.T. -2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2660/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35DSection 92C

upholding the action of the TPO in ignoring the finance cost incurred by the AE in working out the ALP considering the cost plus method. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in enhancing the assessed income of the appellant by an amount of Rs.20

M/S. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2519/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35DSection 92C

upholding the action of the TPO in ignoring the finance cost incurred by the AE in working out the ALP considering the cost plus method. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in enhancing the assessed income of the appellant by an amount of Rs.20

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 292/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

onwards). These amended provisions are applicable only when the determination of 'ALP' is done under the MAM being resale price method ('RPM'), cost plus method ('CPM') or transactional net margin method ('TNMM'). The relevant provisions of Rule 10CA of the Rules, in so far as it relates to choice

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 184/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, DR
Section 234ASection 35(1)(i)

part is as under:- “3. At the outset, it is submitted that assessee bench marked the transaction of sale to the AE using Cost Plus Method (CPM) analysis, however, the Ld.TPO rejected the CPM analysis and used Transactional Net Margins Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method. 3.1 The Ld.AR

M/S. Ig Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92C

onwards). These amended provisions are applicable only when the determination of 'ALP' is done under the MAM being resale price method ('RPM'), cost plus method ('CPM') or transactional net margin method ('TNMM'). The relevant provisions of Rule IT(TP)A No.204/Bang/2022 IG Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page

Mfx Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 251/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 251/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B

onwards). These amended provisions are applicable only when the determination of ‘ALP’ is done under the MAM being resale price method (‘RPM’), cost plus method (‘CPM’) or transactional net margin method (‘TNMM’). The relevant provisions of Rule 10CA of the Rules, in so far as it relates to choice

Softlayer Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 265/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

when the determination of 'ALP' is done under the MAM being resale price method IT(TP)A No.265/Bang/2021 Page 41 of 66 ('RPM'), cost plus method ('CPM') or transactional net margin method ('TNMM'). The relevant provisions of Rule 10CA of the Rules, in so far as it relates to choice

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Shridharan &For Respondent: Shri C T Mathew, DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

reversal of amount charged by the AEs for warranty claims in earlier years) 11. SAP related support services received, 3,92,66,987 Cost Plus Method and payments made thereof (CPM) 12. ASP management services received, and 6,06,85,073 CPM payments made thereof 13. Microsoft licenses procured ... plus a markup of 5%. The nature of services were sales and marketing, information technology, finance, management support and human resources. Assessee adopted cost plus method as the most appropriate method for payment of these fees. The weighted average margins of the comparable independent companies were found in the range

DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

marginal different of 1.74% which is within the permissible range of +/- 5%. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the CUP method but applied cost plus method and proposed the adjustment. The learned CIT (A) examined the transaction and upheld the CUP method. It is examined that assessee has sold Pacimol ... Pharmaceutical products by National Drugs (Pty) Ltd, it adopted CUP method and for sale of pharmaceuticals products to Activa Pharmaceutical it adopted cost plus method. With respect to the purchase of pharmaceutical products, the learned Assessing Officer accepted the benchmarking by the assessee and made no adjustment. With respect

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3811/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

marginal different of 1.74% which is within the permissible range of +/- 5%. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the CUP method but applied cost plus method and proposed the adjustment. The learned CIT (A) examined the transaction and upheld the CUP method. It is examined that assessee has sold Pacimol ... Pharmaceutical products by National Drugs (Pty) Ltd, it adopted CUP method and for sale of pharmaceuticals products to Activa Pharmaceutical it adopted cost plus method. With respect to the purchase of pharmaceutical products, the learned Assessing Officer accepted the benchmarking by the assessee and made no adjustment. With respect

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3691/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

marginal different of 1.74% which is within the permissible range of +/- 5%. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the CUP method but applied cost plus method and proposed the adjustment. The learned CIT (A) examined the transaction and upheld the CUP method. It is examined that assessee has sold Pacimol ... Pharmaceutical products by National Drugs (Pty) Ltd, it adopted CUP method and for sale of pharmaceuticals products to Activa Pharmaceutical it adopted cost plus method. With respect to the purchase of pharmaceutical products, the learned Assessing Officer accepted the benchmarking by the assessee and made no adjustment. With respect

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

marginal different of 1.74% which is within the permissible range of +/- 5%. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the CUP method but applied cost plus method and proposed the adjustment. The learned CIT (A) examined the transaction and upheld the CUP method. It is examined that assessee has sold Pacimol ... Pharmaceutical products by National Drugs (Pty) Ltd, it adopted CUP method and for sale of pharmaceuticals products to Activa Pharmaceutical it adopted cost plus method. With respect to the purchase of pharmaceutical products, the learned Assessing Officer accepted the benchmarking by the assessee and made no adjustment. With respect

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2815/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

marginal different of 1.74% which is within the permissible range of +/- 5%. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the CUP method but applied cost plus method and proposed the adjustment. The learned CIT (A) examined the transaction and upheld the CUP method. It is examined that assessee has sold Pacimol ... Pharmaceutical products by National Drugs (Pty) Ltd, it adopted CUP method and for sale of pharmaceuticals products to Activa Pharmaceutical it adopted cost plus method. With respect to the purchase of pharmaceutical products, the learned Assessing Officer accepted the benchmarking by the assessee and made no adjustment. With respect