Indian safe harbour rules are a “double-edged sword”

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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


Indian safe harbour rules are a “double-edged sword”

The introduction of safe harbour rules to India is a “double-edged sword” and the tax authorities need to be careful with how they implement them, says a report.

The report by Deloitte India, argues that the country’s new rules will improve taxpayer certainty and ease the administrative burden on the tax authorities. However, it also states that there is a risk that the provisions could also lead to adverse effects including double taxation.

Safe harbour provisions were announced in July’s budget. It was explained that the safe harbour will take two forms. These are the exclusion of certain classes of transactions from transfer pricing regulations and the stipulation of margins or thresholds for prescribed classes of transactions.

The report highlights the benefits of the new rules. It suggests that the rules have been designed as a comfort mechanism as they will allow greater flexibility especially in the areas where there are no matching or comparable arm’s length prices.

Another advantage provided by a safe harbour would be the certainty that a taxpayer’s transfer prices will be accepted by the tax administration.

Despite these positives, the report suggests that safe harbour rules are likely to have an impact on multinationals operating within India. It was explained that the availing of safe harbour provisions in one country with a certain specified transfer price could lead to different transfer prices, following the arm’s length principle. This could trigger double taxation risks.

Taxpayers may also be more likely to dispute a transfer pricing adjustment in the country where they have applied safe harbour provisions to prevent double taxation.

The report also calls on the tax authorities to clearly define the types of costs to be included in the cost base for the purpose of determining the arm’s length price.

“Safe harbour provisions truly represent a double-edged sword. While formulating the safe harbour policies [the tax authorities] should always remember that while these provisions provide the needed relief of certainty, simplified method and administrative ease to tax authorities, the same provisions could lead to adverse effects, if not formulated or applied in an appropriate manner in the various cases of taxpayers/transactions,” said the report.

Other countries that have introduced safe harbour rules to their transfer pricing regulations include Australia, Brazil and Mexico.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The firm demonstrated its sweet spot of litigation with an international twist with the recent win for the Danish tax authority…but it’s not a tax case
The recently formed firm has taken a break from hiring EY talent to expand its transactional tax and tax technology capabilities
The AI platform, founded last year by two school friends, is partnering with challenger firms like Unity Advisory and A&M Tax to launch its own assault on the AI tax market
Not only has Aurtus received recognition from ITR in the past, but its founder was both a partner at KPMG and co-founder of Dhruva Advisors
Clients care more about considered counsel than rapid media-friendly soundbites, says Matthew Gilleard, associate director at Infinite
It was also a memorable night for Galicia, KPMG, Skadden and Pinheiro Neto, all of which scooped major awards at a gala ceremony in New York
The former Deloitte UK CEO earned a 45% raise in a year when 1,000 staff reportedly lost their jobs – and the pay gap is only getting bigger
In a seminal development for big law, the 95-year-old firm is set to cease operations after a series of high-profile partner departures
UK Chancellor John Healey extended a VAT cut, suspended tariffs, increased a bank surcharge and vowed to increase funding for HMRC
Kristine Riisberg warned that TP decisions can determine top-up tax exposure under pillar two, while global consensus over the rules remains unsettled
Gift this article