Transfer Pricing Litigation in India
April 27, 2013
Pune Branch of WIRC of ICAI
Direct Tax Refresher Course 2013
Pramod Joshi
Senior Director, Transfer Pricing
Trends in TP Audits in India- Increasing volumes
• Trends indicate greater scrutiny, leading to increased adjustments and resultant litigation
• Favorable decisions from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
• Looking Ahead- Safe Harbour and Advance pricing agreement (APA)
• Approximately 9.3 Billion EUR addition on account of transfer pricing for FY 2008-09
Financial year No. of cases Cases adjustedCases adjusted (%)
Estimated addition (EUR)
2001-02 1081 238 22% 234 mn
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
2002-03 1501 345 23% 439 mn
2003-04 1768 477 27% 658 mn
2004-05 1479 370 25% 844 mn
2005-06 1717 1019 59% 1661 mn
2006-07 2000 1040 (approx.) More than 50%3410 mn.
(approx)
2007-08 2589 1346 52%6829 mn.
(approx.)
Note-The above figures are estimations based on various presentations by the Department and news reports
2
Normal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
Apex
Court
High Court
Tribunal
• Most tax disputes are dealt
under traditional dispute
resolution avenues
• 60 to 70 % of decisions by
Tribunal on transfer pricing
disputes in favor of the tax
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
Tribunal (final fact finding authority)
Commissioner (Appeals) / Dispute Resolution Panel
Tax
officer
disputes in favor of the tax
payer
• Each level of hierarchy involves
substantial period of time
3
Recent Key Transfer Pricing Assessment Issues
• Royalties for know-how and trademark/ trade names
• Intra-group services - management services fees / Cost contributions
• Guarantee fee, intercompany loans and other financial transactions
• Mark-ups for captive intra-group service providers, particularly ITES / BPO
industry
• Service companies and intangibles development in India
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
• Service companies and intangibles development in India
• Losses incurred
• Adjustments for functional differences
• Comparability of Domestic and Export Segment
• Comparable with higher profits/ losses
• Marketing intangibles (and the “access to market” argument)
• Valuation of Shares
4
Method Selection, Functional
Adjustments and its
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
Adjustments and its
Application
5
Schefenacker Motherson Ltd (SML)
Facts
� SML manufactures rear view mirrors and cable assemblies for the automobile industry
� International transactions include import of components, exports of cable assemblies and payment of
royalty for technical know-how
� TNMM with cash profit (CP) / sales as PLI used for benchmarking to eliminate differences in technology
used, age of assets, capacity utilisation and different depreciation policies adopted by comparables
� TPO rejected the above PLI stating that Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) provides for adjustment to be made only to the
results of comparable companies and not to the tested party; and making a depreciation adjustment has no
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
sanction in law
Tribunal Decision / Observations
� Tribunal held that Cash Profit / sales or Cash Profit / total cost excluding depreciation can be adopted as an
appropriate PLI under TNMM, to adjust for material differences in the assets utilized between tested party
and comparable companies
� Discussed the concept of “Operating Income”. There is no standard test for deciding what constitutes
operational income (or profit) and that it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
6
Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd (SAIPL)
Facts
� SAIPL is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling passenger cars
� First full year of the operation for SAIPL
� International transactions include import of material and payment of royalties and technical
know-how fees
� SAIPL adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method and also relied on CUP method by
contending that ex-factory selling price by parent company would remain same for all AEs
� TPO rejected certain comparables on account of persistent losses and non-availability of
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
� TPO rejected certain comparables on account of persistent losses and non-availability of
contemporaneous data and made the TP adjustment
7
Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd (SAIPL)
Pune Tribunal Decision / Observations
� CUP analysis rejected
� The transaction has to be between two entities which cannot influence or control each
other’s decision
� Tribunal observed that the business models of the comparable companies having an import
content ranging from 26 percent to 56.83 percent is fundamentally different from that of
SAIPL having import contents as high as 98.55 percent
� Adjustment would be required for unusually high costs on account of initial stages of
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
� Adjustment would be required for unusually high costs on account of initial stages of
business
8
Fiat India
Facts
� Taxpayer engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of passenger cars and trading
of spare parts
� Taxpayer adopted TNMM and made comparability adjustments
� Under utilization of capacity
� Higher incidence of octroi and excise duty (due to slow moving stock)
� Low volume from otherwise profitable spare parts business
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
� Relatively higher employee salary costs due to underutilization
� TPO considered PBDIT as the PLI and made adjustment
Mumbai Tribunal’s Decision / Observations
� Taxpayer sufficiently explained and demonstrated material differences in the facts of the
taxpayer and comparable companies
� Taxpayer being in asset intensive industry depreciation should be considered on actual usage
of fixed assets for the purpose of computing the operating margin to lead to a meaningful
outcome
9
Cheminova
Facts
� Taxpayer engaged in manufacturing of agrochemicals, pesticides, weedicides and plant
growth stimulators
� Taxpayer purchased raw material from its AE and Non-AEs (Chinese suppliers)
� Purchased from domestic market at a higher rate than the price paid to AE
� Taxpayer selected CUP method
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
Tribunal Decision / Observations
� Importance of economic and commercial factors in ALP determination
� Substitution to Chinese supplier was not feasible until quality was established
� Key takeaway – even in a case where adverse CUP exists, proper documentation of the
business reasons and robust economic analysis can come to the rescue
10
IL Jin Electronics
Facts
� Taxpayer was engaged in manufacture of Printed Circuit Boards
� Taxpayer imported 45.51% of the raw materials from its AEs
� TNMM was selected as the most appropriate method
� The TPO proposed an adjustment by rejecting certain high loss making comparables
� Taxpayer contended that working capital adjustments should be made to the margins of
comparable companies. Further, adjustment if any should be restricted having regard to
the proportion of the international transaction with total turnover.
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
the proportion of the international transaction with total turnover.
Delhi Tribunal’s Decision / Observations
� TNMM was selected as the most appropriate method in absence of data with regard topurchase of raw material by the AE from third parties
� Working capital adjustment depends on the credit period extended and availed by thetaxpayer
� The adjustment was restricted to the ratio of international transaction to the total cost ofraw material
11
Global Vantedge
Facts
� GV India is engaged in rendering IT-enabled services in the field of credit collection and telemarketingservices and is eligible for deduction under Section 10A
� GV India adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method considering AE as a tested party. GV Indiahad losses at operating level
� TPO considered GV India as tested party and made an adjustment to the international transactions bycomparing comparables’ margin of (-)11.88% with loss of GV India (-)53.5%
Delhi Tribunal’s Decision / Observations
� Foreign entity could be selected as the tested party if it is least complex. However, due to non-
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
� Foreign entity could be selected as the tested party if it is least complex. However, due to non-availability of data for carrying out FAR / adjustments and geographical differences in entitlementsforeign entity could not be treated as tested party
� Total adjustment along with the ALP reported by the taxpayer cannot exceed total revenue earnedfrom the transaction from an end to end perspective
� Adjudicated that the taxpayer’s transactions with third parties should not be considered while usingTNMM
� It was held that comparables engaged in dissimilar activities and those having substantial relatedparty transactions should be rejected. Further, as the taxpayer was in the start-up phase, accordinglyadjustments due to surplus capacity should be carried out for the comparables.
12
Internal Comparability
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells13
Genisys Integrating System
Facts Ruling by Bangalore Tribunal
� The assessee was engaged in the
business of providing software
development and IT enable services
(Call Centres)
� Internal TNMM as the most appropriate
method for determining ALP of software
services
� The assessee provided similar
software development services to its
� Assessee had provided basis of
apportionment of direct and indirect cost
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells14
AEs and non-AEs and adopted
internal TNMM as the most
appropriate method to determine ALP
between AE and non AE and documentary
evidence and in absence of reasons to reject
TNMM, TPO to adopt internal TNMM after
verifying the cost allocation and margin
computation� The TPO rejected internal TNMM and
adopted external TNMM to determine
ALP resulting in adjustment to
software development services
� The DRP confirmed the adjustment
proposed by the TPO relating to
software development services
Drilbits International Private Limited
Facts Ruling by Pune ITAT
� The taxpayer was manufacturing bits forindustrial drill machines and were sellingto overseas parent as well as in India tothird parties
� On appeal the tax court deleted the adjustment bypointing out that comparison between domesticand export segment not tenable consideringmaterial differences in risks assumed andfunctions undertaken and no reasonableadjustment was possible to quantify
� The manufacturing units was earlierowned by another third party who wassupplying to the same overseas entity and
� The Tax court also asked the tax authorities tofollow rule of consistency as the approach of taxpayer (TNMM as a method) was accepted in
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells15
supplying to the same overseas entity andthe rates remained same even after theoverseas entity acquired themanufacturing unit through its Indian arm
payer (TNMM as a method) was accepted insubsequent year by the field officer
� The field TP officer rejected the CUP(price at which the earlier owner of factorywas selling the bits)
� The field TP officer used “cost plus” as amethod resorting to comparison betweendomestic and export segment and madeTP adjustment
Tecnimont ICB Facts
� The taxpayer Tecnimont ICB Private Limited, an Indian company was engaged in EPC turnkey contracts, design/
supervision/ translation services and feasibility studies
� Tecnimont ICB Private Limited had a 100% subsidiary in India ICB Contractors Private Limited
� Out of the total revenues of ICB Contractors Private Limited, 59% revenue was from one of the AEs (JTS)
� In the TP assessment, the assessee, contended that ICB Contractors Private Limited is a better comparable, after the TPOrejecting 12 external comparables
� TPO rejected on the ground of ICB Contractors Private Limited having related party transactions and made addition of Rs. 7crores
� CIT(A) deleted the addition
Ruling by Mumbai ITAT
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells16
� Accountant member of ITAT held that ICB Contractors Private Limited could not be a comparable as it is having relatedparty transactions
� Judicial member of ITAT took a view that since transactions between ICB Contractors Private Limited and JTS are at arm;slength, it could be considered as a comparable company
� The third member held that ICB Contractors Private Limited can not be taken as a comparable company as comparablecould be internal or external but in case comparable must be that of uncontrolled transaction or number of such transactions
� There is no statutory sanction for roping in a comparable controlled transaction for the purposes of benchmarking. When ithas been clearly mandated in all the relevant methods for determining ALP that the comparison has to be made by theenterprise's international transaction with comparable uncontrolled transaction, by no sheer logic a comparable controlledtransaction can be employed for the purposes of making comparison. There is no warrant for diluting the prescription givenby the statute or rules when such prescription itself serves the ends of justice properly and is infallible. If the view of theRevenue that a controlled transaction should not be shunted out for the purposes of benchmarking is accepted, then all the
relevant provisions contained in Chapter X in this regard, will become otiose.”
Turnover Filter, Functional
Comparability
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells17
Comparability
Trilogy E-Business Software India
Facts Ruling by Banaglore Tribunal
� Trilogy India was engaged in the
supply of software research and
development services to its U.S.
parent
� Trilogy India was remunerated at
cost plus 10 % and adopted TNMM
and while selecting comparable
companies used maximum turnover
� Turnover filter of Rs.1 crore to Rs.200 crore
may be applied in this case and export filter
is a must if the assessee renders services
to export market
� Onsite revenue filter may be used if the
assessee renders offshore software
development
� Comparables owning intangibles are
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells18
companies used maximum turnover
filter of INR 200 crores as its own
sales was INR 47 crores
� The TPO accepted the TNMM but
challenged selection of comparable
by rejecting maximum turnover filter
as well as didn’t exclude
comparables with abnormally high
margins
� The TPO revised the set of
comparables which resulted in high
margins
� Comparables owning intangibles are
functionally not comparable with the
assessee who does not own intangibles
� Abnormal profit making companies may be
excluded as comparables if supported by
sufficient evidence for such abnormal profit
� Comparables outsourcing majority of its
work to third parties may be excluded
Genisys Integrated Systems India Private Limited
Facts Ruling by Banaglore Tribunal
� Assessee was engaged in business
of software development and
rendering of ITES services to AEs
� TPO rejected turnover filter of the
assessee (1 to 200 crore rupees)
contending that Indian TP
regulations as well as OECD
guidelines did not prescribe turnover
� Considering size of business of the
assessee 1 to 200 crore turnover filter is
appropriate
� In this case ITAT also held in favor of the
TPO on issue of use of data which
becomes available after the due date of
filing the return of income (i.e. the date
generally by which companies undertake
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells19
guidelines did not prescribe turnover
filter and once the company is
functionally similar then it could be
compared irrespective of turnover,
size, scope of operations
� TPO applied several other filters and
rejected 10 comparables
generally by which companies undertake
the search and prepares the comparability
analysis as a part of transfer pricing
documentation)
Aggregation of Closely Linked
Transactions
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
Transactions
20
Demag Cranes & Components
Facts Ruling by Tax Court
� The taxpayer was providing state of theart material handling solutions to Indiancustomers
� On appeal the Pune tribunal noted that Indian TPregulations allows aggregation of closely linkedtransactions for determining arm’s length pricewhich is in line with OECD approach
� Taxpayer was basically having the projectbusiness consisting of:
� Manufacture of material handlingequipment
� While ruling out the TP adjustment, the tax courtobserved that the taxpayer enter into a singlecontract negotiation with customer formanufacturing and sale of cranes and hoistswhich includes manufacture, supply and services
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells21
� Purchase and distribution of importedmaterial handling equipment
� Availing of technical services andrendering of marketing services
which includes manufacture, supply and services
� The TPO applied TNMM by segregatingthe business into manufacturing,distribution and services segment andconsequently made TP adjustments
� For determining the need for aggregation oneneed to look at facts and circumstances of eachbusiness and cannot define parameters in a watertight compartment
RBI thresholds for ALP?
Mumbai ITAT’s 2 Opposite
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells22
Mumbai ITAT’s 2 Opposite
Rulings
RBI thresholds for ALP? Mumbai ITAT’s 2 opposite rulings
ThyssenKrupp Industries India Private Limited
SKOL Breweries Limited
� The assessee was engaged in business ofturnkey projects and paid 2% of contractvalue to its AE for know-how. It also paidroyalty of 5% of the selling price to the AEas per the collaboration agreement
� Assessee through Central bank of Indiaapplied to RBI for approval and RBI askedthe bank to consider assessee’s case in
� SKOL Breweries was engaged in manufacturingand marketing of beer in India and it was payingroyalty at the rate of 5% to SAB Miller for usingof technical know-how provided
� TPO rejected CUP and applied TNMM tobenchmark royalty with other transactions
� Mumbai ITAT ruled that RBI approval has no
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells23
the bank to consider assessee’s case inaccordance with AP (DIR Series) No. 76dated 24.02.2007 and under the deemedapproval given by RBI under automaticroute, ThyssenKrupp India made thepayment
� The TPO determined ALP at NIL proposingan adjustment of Rs. 4.29 crores
� Mumbai ITAT Held that when the rate ofroyalty payment and fee for drawings etc.has been approved or deemed to havebeen approved by the RBI, then suchpayment has to be considered at ALP
� Mumbai ITAT ruled that RBI approval has norelevance on issue of Arms Length Price andRBI, at the time of giving such permission wouldnot keep in mind the provisions of the I T Act andthat is the function of the income tax authorities
� When a proper mechanism is provided under theprovisions of the I. T. Act and Rules fordetermination of the ALP, then the approval byother than the I. T. Authorities, for the purpose ofremittance/outflow of the foreign exchange, doesnot ipso facto, partake the character of ALP,which has to be determined as per TPregulations
Inter-company Loans, Debt
and Guarantees
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
and Guarantees
24
Perot Systems
Facts
� The taxpayer was an Indian company engaged in the business of designing and developingtechnology enabled business transformation solutions
� The taxpayer had extended interest free foreign currency loans to its AEs
� The TPO adopted LIBOR + 1.64% as the arm’s length interest
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells25
Taxpayer’s Contentions before Delhi Tribunal
� The loans were in the nature of quasi-equity
� Hungary thin capitalization rules kicked in and part of the debt was treated as capital
� The AEs were start-up companies and no lender would have lent money
� The intention of advancing loan was to earn dividend and not to earn interest
� Real income concept argued
Perot Systems
Delhi Tribunal’s Decision / Observations
� “No income arising” argument rejected
� Interest free loan does not satisfy the arm’s length principle
� No special feature in contract demonstrated to treat the loan transaction to be equity innature
� Contentions re commercial expediency / inability of the Sub to borrow - rejected
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells26
� Contentions re commercial expediency / inability of the Sub to borrow - rejected
Nimbus communication
Facts
� Taxpayer had receivables outstanding from AEs for > 180 days
� TPO attributed interest on extended credit and made adjustment
� For adjustment TPO used rate of interest charged for inter-company loan
Tribunal Decision / Observations
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells27
� Taxpayer has not charged interest on delayed payments from third parties
� Taxpayer has not paid interest on delayed payments to its creditors
� TPO has not followed any of the methods in making adjustment
� Loans and trade credit are different and not comparable
� ITAT deleted adjustment on merits and law
Cotton Naturals (I) Private Limited
Facts
� The assessee was engaged in manufacture of apparel and had provided loan at 4% p.a. to
its AE
� Applying CUP the interest rate was comparable with export packing credit rate obtained from
independent banks in India
� TPO considering the domestic lending rate of 17.26% and made an adjustment and DRP
recomputed the adjustment by applying interest rate of 13.25%
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells28
Ruling by Delhi Tribunal
� Where transactions was of lending money in foreign currency to its foreign AE, the
comparable transaction would be foreign currency lending by unrelated parties
� Domestic prime lending rate would have no applicability and LIBOR should be taken as the
benchmark rate for international transaction relying on following ITAT judgments
� Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd (Chennai Tribunal)
� Four Soft Ltd (Hyderabad Tribunal)
� Tech Mahindra Ltd (Mumbai Tribunal)
� Tata Autocomp System (Mumbai Tribunal)
Intra Group Services –
Management Services Fees/
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells29
Management Services Fees/
Cost-recharges
Dresser Rand India Private Limited
Facts
� The assessee was a wholly owned subsidiary of Dresser Rand Co., USA engaged in the
business of manufacturing various types of process gas compressors
� The assessee paid towards cost contribution allocation (“CCA”) made by the parent
company owing to lack of facilities or manpower for various fields (such as legal, marketing,
technical , etc.)
� The TPO held that no ‘real service’ was availed and the expenditure was not genuine and
as such ALP is NIL
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells30
as such ALP is NIL
Ruling by Mumbai Tribunal
� revenue officers had no authority to question the assessee’ s commercial wisdom or decide
what was necessary, in order to conduct business effectively
� It can not be said that since the assessee had qualified staff on its roll, there was no need
for it to obtain services from AE
� it is wholly irrelevant as to whether the assessee benefits from it or not; the real question is
whether the price of this service is what an independent enterprise would have paid for the
same.”
� allocation of cost on the basis of head count and turnover was reasonable
Marketing Intangibles
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells31
Marketing Intangibles
� Within a multinational group, the trade mark owner is typically a separate entity, legally
and geographically, from the subsidiary that undertakes the marketing investment
� Typically, development of the market is at the risk and economic cost of the distributor
(or) the foreign parent indirectly subsidises the development of the market through a
reduced transfer price (or) the foreign parent provided the distributor with a rebate of a
portion of the distributor’s advertising & market promotion spend (AMP) based on sales
volumes
� High marketing expenditure by a subsidiary is increasingly being scrutinised by revenue
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells32
� High marketing expenditure by a subsidiary is increasingly being scrutinised by revenue
authorities – The authorities are either
a) Disallowing AMP expenditure of distributor
b) Deeming a service fee for the marketing effort
c) Expect higher marketing margins as return for investment
LG Electronics – ITAT Special Bench
Background
� LG Electronics Inc. (“LGK/AE”) is a Korean Company engaged in the manufacture, sale
and distribution of electronic products and electrical appliances
� LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (“LG India/ assessee”) is wholly owned subsidiary of LGK
and has been engaged in manufacture and sale of LG brand goods
� LGK allowed LG India to use the LG brand name without any royalty
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells33
� Transfer pricing field officer observed that LG India incurred AMP expenses of 3.85% of
sales, which is more than the average AMP/ Sales ratio of two of comparables,
Videocon and Whirlpool (1.39%)
Questions
� Whether transfer pricing adjustment can be made in relation to AMP expenses incurred
by the taxpayer?
� Whether the taxpayer ought to have been compensated by the associated enterprises
(AE) in respect of such AMP expenses alleged to have been incurred for and on behalf
of the AE?
LG Electronics – ITAT Special Bench
Ruling in Brief – by majority of Judges
� There is a valid transaction in the form of excessive AMP expenses incurred by LG
India enhancing the LG brand, legally owned by LGK.
� Amount of the transaction is calculated by applying the bright line test, i.e. based on
level of AMP expenses of comparable companies LG India’s AMP cost were divided
between
• Those assisting local product sales
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells34
• Those assisting local product sales
• Those enhancing global brand value
� The amounts enhancing brand value should be paid by LGK along with a mark-up
Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited
Facts Ruling by Chandigarh Tribunal
� The assessee engaged in
manufacturing and selling of
nutritional products under the
brands “Horlicks,” “Boost,” “Maltova”
and “Viva” in India
� Per TPO assessee had created a
marketing intangible by incurring a
� In view of the majority decision in LG
Electronics Special Bench case, incurring
of AMP expenses constitute an
international transaction
� Expenses incurred in connection with sales
such as discount on sales, market research
expenses, sales promotion expenses,
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells35
marketing intangible by incurring a
huge AMP expenditure on a brand
owned by an AE and thus, should
have been compensated at ALP by
AE
� The TPO added a mark-up of
13.04% to the “excessive” AMP
expenditure incurred by the
assessee after deducting the brand
development expenditure
expenses, sales promotion expenses,
selling and distribution expenses and
service charges paid to selling agents were
to be excluded from AMP expenses
� The ITAT directed the TPO to determine
ALP only in relation to AMP expenditure
incurred for promotion of only the foreign
brand and no adjustment is required to be
made in respect of the advertisement
expenses attributed to the promotion of
domestic brand owned by the assessee
Key Takeaways
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells36
Key Takeaways
� Detailed FAR analysis for tested party and comparable companies is crucial ; taxpayers must have a
robust documentation with sound FAR analysis and well developed economic analysis to justify the
transfer prices
� International transactions should not be aggregated unless they are inextricably linked
� Least complex entity to be selected as the tested party
� Adjustments be made to improve comparability
� Considering the factual nature of the transfer pricing disputes - the rulings have a limited precedent
value in case there are variation in facts
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells37
value in case there are variation in facts
Avoiding the Litigation:
Introduction of APAs
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
Introduction of APAs
38
Features of Indian APA Program
� Any person who has undertaken or is proposing to undertake an international transaction shall be
eligible to enter into an APA
� Unilateral, bilateral and multilateral APAs may be entered into – For bilateral and multilateral APAs
application to be filed with Indian Competent Authority
� APA team to include experts in economics, statistics, law or any other field
� Pre-filing consultation available including anonymous pre-filing route
� taxpayer may withdraw the application of APA at any time before the finalization of the terms of the APA
� The APA shall be entered into after its approval by the Indian Government
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells39
� The APA shall be entered into after its approval by the Indian Government
� APA shall not be binding on the Government or the taxpayer if there is a change in any of the critical
assumptions
� Taxpayer to file annual compliance return and tax authorities to carry out yearly compliance audit
� Revision of APA possible in case of change in critical assumptions/ law/ Request from competent
authority of other country in case of bilateral and multilateral agreements
� Renewal of the agreement is permissible
� No provision for roll-back as well as no formal firewalls between APA and tax authorities
The APA Process in India
Phase 1:APA PlanningPhase 1:APA Planning
Phase 2:Pre-filingPhase 2:Pre-filing
Phase 3:APA Submission
Phase 3:APA Submission
Phase 4:Post-Submission Process
Phase 4:Post-Submission Process
Phase 5: Drafting and Compliance
Phase 5: Drafting and Compliance
• APA strategy
• Fact gathering and analysis
• Economic
• Prepare pre-filing documents
• Pre-filing meetings with
• Prepare and file APA request /submission
• Acceptance
• Receive/Reply to tax authority questions
• Second, third round
• Finalize APA and sign agreements
• Adjustments and APA
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells40
• Economic analysis
meetings with tax authorities
• Acceptance letter
round questions
• Meetings with tax authorities
• Site visits
• Position Paper
• APA negotiations
and APA annual reports
• Annual Audit by tax authorities
Q & A
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
41
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells
42
This material prepared by Deloitte Haskins & Sells (DHS) is intended to provide general information on a particular subject or subjects and are
not an exhaustive treatment of such subject(s).Further, the views and opinions expressed herein are the subjective views and opinions of DHS
based on such parameters and analyses which in its opinion are relevant to the subject.
Accordingly, the information in this materials is not intended to constitute accounting, tax, legal, investment, consulting, or other professional
advice or services. The information is not intended to be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision which may affect you or your business.
Before making any decision or taking any action that might affect your personal finances or business, you should consult a qualified professional
adviser . None of DHS, its member firms, or its and their respective affiliates shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any
person who relies on this material.
This material is intended only for the use of the entity/person to whom it is addressed and the others authorized to receive it on their behalf. The
recipient is strictly prohibited from further circulation of this material.
© 2013 Deloitte Haskins & Sells