Comparable Uncontrolled Price benchmarking upheld where Tribunal's royalty comparables from the same market and industry showed no perversity.

In a transfer pricing dispute over royalty benchmarking, the Tribunal applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method and accepted comparables drawn from the same geographical market and the same industry category as the assessee. The Delhi HC noted that earlier appeals involving the same assessee and similar transfer pricing issues had already been dismissed, and the Revenue could not demonstrate any perversity in the Tribunal's comparability analysis. On that factual foundation, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose under section 260A, leaving the Tribunal's approach undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeals under section 260A raised any substantial question of law in relation to the Tribunal's selection and inclusion of comparables for benchmarking royalty payments.

Analysis: The Tribunal had adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method for royalty benchmarking and had accepted comparables from the same geographical market and the same industry category as the assessee. The Court noted that earlier appeals on the same assessee and similar transfer pricing issues had already been dismissed, and the Revenue was unable to point out any perversity in the Tribunal's findings. In view of the consistent prior decisions and the factual foundation supporting the Tribunal's comparability exercise, no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

---