International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

India introduces key transfer pricing changes


The new Direct Taxes Code tabled by the Indian finance minister has proposed some sweeping changes in the area of transfer pricing, explain Rohan Phatarphekar and Hardev Singh


The changes proposed would be effective from April 1 2011, subject to deliberations at industry and professional forums before going through the motions in Parliament.

The code has proposed these key changes for transfer pricing regulations:

  • Introduction of an advance pricing programme;

  • Changes to the definition of associated enterprises;

  • Procedural changes to dispute resolution mechanism, assessments and statutory filings;

  • Changes to penalty provisions; and

  • Introduction of general anti-avoidance rules.

The highlights of the advance pricing programme are:

  • An advanced pricing agreement (APA) has been defined as an agreement between a taxpayer and the tax authorities for the upfront determination of the arm’s-length price and pricing methodology in relation to an international transaction;

  • An APA would be valid for a period specified in the APA, up to a maximum of five consecutive financial years;

  • An APA would not be binding in case of a change in the law and on the basis of which it was finalised;

  • The determination of the arm’s-length price is subject to suitable or necessary adjustments made by the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT);

  • The arm’s-length price determined by the APA would not be disturbed by any other provisions of the proposed code;

  • In relation to the international transactions, the APA would be binding on the taxpayer and the commissioner of income-tax and his subordinate income tax authorities.

The introduction of APAs is a welcome measure and should provide a fair degree of certainty to business transactions, given the state of transfer pricing litigation in India. The challenges nonetheless will be in the timely disposal of APA applications and the flexibility and willingness shown by the authorities to dispose of complex applications. Also clarity about the treatment of pending matters not covered by the APA programme will have to be looked at.

Changes to the definition of associated enterprises

The definition of associated parties has been modified to omit the reference of direct or indirect participation in management, control or capital. The definition now seeks to illustrate directly the relationship between two associated enterprises. These changes have been proposed:

  • A direct or indirect shareholding has reduced from 26% to 10%;

  • A loan by one enterprise as a percentage of book value of total assets of the other enterprise has been reduced from 51% to 26%;

  • Power to appoint board of directors has been reduced from more than half to more than one-third of the governing board; and

  • The dependence by one enterprise on another for raw materials for manufacture, has been reduced from 90% or more to two-third or more.

The proposed changes widen the scope of transfer pricing compliance and would also bring into its ambit, transactions with strategic or financial investors.

Procedural changes to dispute resolution mechanism, assessments and statutory filings have also been proposed. These include that:

  • The code proposes that the Dispute Resolution Panel would only deal with cases in respect of adjustments of more than Rs2.5 million ($52,000);

  • The annual accountant’s report would now have to be filed with the transfer pricing officer (TPO) instead of the assessing officer;

  • The due date for filing the accountant’s report has been advanced to August 31, from September 30;

  • The selection of transfer pricing cases for detailed scrutiny would be based on a risk management strategy as may be framed by the CBDT. This strategy would be confidential and would not be shared with the taxpayers; and

  • The time limit for selection of cases by the TPO is proposed to be within two months from the end of the financial year in which the accountant’s report has been filed.

The selection of cases for audit based on a risk management strategy is a step in the right direction, as all cases more than a specified monetary limited are being selected for audit now.

Changes to penalty provisions

  • The penalties for non-filing of the accountant’s report has been proposed at between Rs50,000 to Rs200,000 ($1,040 to $4,160);

  • The penalties for non-maintenance of documentation has been proposed at between Rs50,000 to Rs200,000 as against 2% of the value of the international transaction;

  • The penalties for non-furnishing of documentation has been proposed between Rs5,000 to Rs100,000 as against 2% of the value of the international transaction; and

  • No tax authority would have the power to waive the penalties.

The code has defined certain arrangements as “Impermissible Avoidance Arrangements” whose main purpose is to obtain tax benefits and depart from the arm’s-length principle. These arrangements would be covered by the anti-avoidance measures. The new anti-avoidance rules will have a treaty override. The measures seek to amend or disregard or recharacterise such arrangements.

The code seeks to give significant powers to the tax authorities. It remains to be seen how ready corporates and the tax administration are to accept these changes in their entirety. We believe that the proposed code will undergo some changes before we see it in its final form.

Rohan Phatarphekar, executive director, national head of transfer pricing, KPMG andHardev Singh, director, BSR and Company

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the EU’s BEFIT initiative and wider tax reforms in the bloc.
COVID-19 and an overworked HMRC may have created the ‘perfect storm’ for reduced prosecutions, according to tax professionals.
Participants in the consultation on the UN secretary-general’s report into international tax cooperation are divided – some believe UN-led structures are the way forward, while others want to improve existing ones. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.
Karl Berlin talks to Josh White about meeting the Fair Tax standard, the changing burden of country-by-country reporting, and how windfall taxes may hit renewable energy.
Sandy Markwick, head of the Tax Director Network (TDN) at Winmark, looks at the challenges of global mobility for tax management.
Taxpayers should look beyond the headline criteria of the simplification regime to ensure that their arrangements meet the arm’s-length standard, say Alejandro Ces and Mark Seddon of the EY New Zealand transfer pricing team.
In a recent webinar hosted by law firms Greenberg Traurig and Clayton Utz, officials at the IRS and ATO outlined their visions for 2023.