<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Revenue appeal dismissed; CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of transfer pricing adjustment under s.92CA upheld; CUP method deemed arm&#039;s-length</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93617</link>
    <description>The ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment under s. 92CA, confirming that the assessee&#039;s use of the CUP method for transactions with its AEs reflected arm&#039;s-length pricing. The Tribunal found the TPO/AO had not articulated specific reasons to reject the CUP comparables, had misconstrued facts by inaptly correlating man-month rates to the assessee&#039;s purchase transactions, and failed to adduce contrary material rebutting CIT(A)&#039;s factual findings. CIT(A)&#039;s acceptance of published SUNVIN price data and reliance on OECD guidance and precedent were endorsed. Grounds of appeal were dismissed for lack of merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:52 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Revenue appeal dismissed; CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of transfer pricing adjustment under s.92CA upheld; CUP method deemed arm&#039;s-length</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93617</link>
      <description>The ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment under s. 92CA, confirming that the assessee&#039;s use of the CUP method for transactions with its AEs reflected arm&#039;s-length pricing. The Tribunal found the TPO/AO had not articulated specific reasons to reject the CUP comparables, had misconstrued facts by inaptly correlating man-month rates to the assessee&#039;s purchase transactions, and failed to adduce contrary material rebutting CIT(A)&#039;s factual findings. CIT(A)&#039;s acceptance of published SUNVIN price data and reliance on OECD guidance and precedent were endorsed. Grounds of appeal were dismissed for lack of merit.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:52 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>