Panaji ITAT ₹20.34 Crore TP Adjustment 2026 – CUP vs TNMM Ruling

What Happened?

The Panaji Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has delivered a landmark ruling in August 2026, deleting a ₹20.34 crore transfer pricing (TP) adjustment imposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The tribunal held that where a taxpayer has applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method with both internal and external comparables, the TPO cannot simply abandon this method and switch to the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) without proper justification. The key finding was that the TNMM comparable relied upon by the TPO was functionally different from the taxpayer's transaction, making CUP the more appropriate method.

Background & Legal Context

Transfer pricing under the Income Tax Act, 2025 is governed by Sections 92 to 92F. The primary section—Section 92(1)—requires that transfer pricing must be determined using the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Act prescribes six TP methods in order of preference:

• Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) – Most preferred when comparable data exists
• Cost Plus Method – For cost-based transactions
• Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) – Applied when comparables are limited or functionally different
• Profit Split Method – For integrated or unique transactions
• Transactional Profit Method – For rare scenarios
• Any other method – With CBDT approval

Under Section 92F of IT Act 2025, the TPO must apply the method that is most appropriate in the circumstances of each case. However, the law also requires that method selection must be based on factual comparability and functional similarity. The Supreme Court has consistently held (citing earlier decisions under the 1961 Act) that CUP is the most reliable method and should be preferred when valid comparables exist.

The Panaji ITAT ruling reinforces that the TPO cannot arbitrarily shift from one method to another without documented reasons. The tribunal observed that the TNMM comparable selected by the TPO involved different functions, assets, and risks (FAR analysis) compared to the taxpayer's transaction, thereby making it functionally incomparable.

What Does This Mean for You?

If you are an exporter, multinational enterprise, or any business engaged in related-party transactions:

• CUP Method Protection: This ruling confirms that if you have properly documented internal comparables (e.g., sales to independent parties) or external comparables (from public databases, industry studies), the TPO cannot simply reject the CUP method. You now have stronger grounds to defend your TP position for AY 2025-26 and beyond.
• Functional Comparability Matters: The judgment underscores that any method switch by the TPO must be backed by proper Functional Analysis Report (FAR). If the TPO's proposed comparable does not match your functions, assets, or risks, you have a strong defence under this precedent.
• Documentation Burden Shifts: The TPO now bears a higher burden to justify why a more reliable method (CUP) was abandoned in favour of a less direct one (TNMM). Weak comparability arguments from the revenue will likely be rejected on appeal.
• Relief for Pending Appeals: Taxpayers with pending TP cases before ITAT involving similar CUP vs. TNMM disputes can cite this ruling. The judgment is persuasive authority and strengthens settlement possibilities.
• Assessment Year 2025-26 Applicability: Since this is an August 2026 ruling addressing methodology selection principles, it will apply to assessments being finalized for AY 2025-26 (relevant to FY 2024-25) and subsequent years.

What Should You Do Now?

Immediate Actions for Taxpayers:

• Review Your TP Study (if prepared for FY 2024-25 or onwards): Check whether you have applied CUP with internal/external comparables. If yes, ensure your TP documentation clearly states the functional similarities and economic circumstances supporting CUP selection. Reference this Panaji ITAT judgment in your contemporaneous TP documentation.
• If Facing TP Adjustment: If a TPO has already issued an adjustment for AY 2025-26 switching from your chosen CUP method to TNMM, immediately file a First Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Cite the Panaji ITAT ruling emphasizing functional incomparability of the TPO's proposed comparable.
• Strengthen Your FAR (Functional Analysis Report): For future returns, ensure your TP study includes a detailed FAR comparing your transaction's functions, assets, and risks with proposed comparables. This document is now your strongest shield against method-switching attacks by the TPO.
• Prepare Comparable Database: Maintain a robust database of internal comparables (sales to independent customers) and external comparables (industry databases, RBI data, regulatory filings). The more comparables you have documented, the harder it is for the TPO to justify CUP rejection.
• Seek Professional Review: If your TP position involves related-party transactions worth more than ₹1 crore, engage transfer pricing specialists to review methodology selection against this new precedent. Many earlier-year disputes may now be settled in your favour.

Practical Example

Scenario: ABC Ltd (India) exports garments to its parent company XYZ Ltd (Singapore). For FY 2024-25, ABC used CUP method referencing internal comparables (sales to independent retailers at ₹500/piece) and external comparables from industry reports. The TPO rejected CUP and imposed TNMM using a comparable company with a different product mix and customer base.

Earlier Position: ABC would have struggled to defend CUP at first appeal stage unless the FAR was bulletproof.

Post-Panaji Ruling: ABC can now credibly argue that the TPO's TNMM comparable is functionally different (different product specifications, sales channels, customer concentration). The tribunal will likely accept that CUP was the appropriate method, deleting the adjustment.

Key Takeaways

• CUP Preference Confirmed: Under Income Tax Act 2025, Section 92F, CUP remains the most preferred method. TPO cannot downgrade it without robust justification backed by functional comparability analysis.
• Method-Switching Risky for Revenue: The Panaji ruling imposes strict scrutiny on TPO's decisions to switch from CUP to TNMM. Weak comparables or functionally dissimilar transactions will not pass appellate review.
• Documentation is Gold: Contemporaneous TP study with detailed FAR, internal comparables, and external comparable selection logic is now your best defence against TP adjustments.
• Immediate Relief for Pending Cases: Taxpayers in ITAT/Commissioner (Appeals) stage with similar disputes should immediately cite this judgment. Many cases may settle or be decided in taxpayer's favour.
• AY 2025-26 Onwards Impact: This precedent will influence TP assessment strategy for FY 2024-25 onwards. TPOs are likely to be more cautious in method-switching, reducing arbitrary adjustments.

Bottom Line: The Panaji ITAT's ₹20.34 crore deletion signals a judiciary firmly committed to principles-based transfer pricing under the IT Act 2025. If your TP methodology is sound and comparables are properly documented, you now have stronger appellate grounds to defend against aggressive TPO positions.

Need expert help with this? EaseValue CAs in Jaipur — WhatsApp 63677 44602