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 levies extended beyond the president’s ‘legitimate reach’, the Supreme Court ruled
While Brazil’s consumption tax overhaul led to a short-term spike in tax advisory demand, we are now in a period of ‘normalisation’ marked by decreased recruitment
The expanded firm will comprise roughly 8,500 employees, including 550 partners; in other news, Paul Hastings and Macfarlanes made senior tax hires
Meanwhile, one expert highlights the importance of separating Venezuela’s tax authority from direct political control after ‘lost decades and isolation’
With PMK 108, Indonesia has upgraded its tax transparency regime for the digital era, focusing on data quality, governance, and cross border exchange rather than expanding regulatory reach
In a popular LinkedIn post, Jeremie Beitel encouraged firms to invest in junior talent even if it doesn’t lead to their loyalty, though recruiters offered ITR a mixed assessment
Advisers who do not register for the new regime in time could be prevented from interacting with HMRC, the tax authority said
Valid pillar two objectives are still intact after the side-by-side agreement, but whether the framework is now settled is ‘a $64,000 question’, Morrison Foerster’s tax chair told ITR
Ian Halligan previously led Baker Tilly’s international tax services in the US
Exclusive ITR data emphasises that DEI does not affect in-house buying decisions – and it’s nothing to do with the US president
Gift this article