When a multinational sets the price for goods, services, intellectual property, or financing between its Indian entity and its overseas affiliates, that price determines how much profit is recognised in India — and therefore how much Indian tax is paid. The Income Tax Department's Transfer Pricing Officers have consistently been among the most aggressive in the world: India has historically produced more transfer pricing adjustments by value than any country other than the United States. The adjustments run to hundreds of crores on individual companies.
Goldschmidt Pallonji's Transfer Pricing practice combines the three disciplines that a serious TP defence requires — economic analysis (the comparable company and comparable transaction data), accounting analysis (the functional and risk characterisation of the Indian entity), and legal analysis (the interpretation of the arm's length standard, the applicable OECD guidelines, and the DTAA provisions that govern the transaction). Most TP advisers provide one or two of these. GP provides all three from one team.
For the international businesses that form the core of GP's TP practice — Australian corporates with Indian captive centres, Singapore holding structures with Indian operating companies, GCC family businesses with Indian procurement entities, UK groups with Indian software development arms — the TP position cannot be advised in isolation from the parent jurisdiction's position. GP's five international corridors ensure the TP strategy is consistent across both sides of every related-party transaction.
From annual documentation through APA to ITAT — the complete transfer pricing lifecycle, handled by economists, CAs, and lawyers working as one team.
Annual TP documentation under Form 3CEB — master file, local file, and country-by-country report (CbCR) for entities above the threshold. Functional and risk analysis of the Indian entity, selection of the most appropriate transfer pricing method, benchmarking study using CMIE Prowess / TP Catalyst / Bureau van Dijk databases, and preparation of the TP study report. Documentation built to withstand TPO scrutiny at every level — from the initial reference to the ITAT bench.
Learn More →Unilateral APAs with the Indian Competent Authority for certainty on the arm's length price for a defined period. Bilateral APAs — coordinated with the competent authority of the treaty partner jurisdiction (Australia, Singapore, UAE, UK, Hong Kong) — eliminating the risk of double taxation on the same transaction. Pre-filing consultation, APA application preparation, negotiation support, and annual compliance reporting. Rollback provisions to cover prior years already under scrutiny.
Learn More →Defence before the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) during the assessment — submissions, economic analysis responses, and comparables challenges. Where the TPO proposes an adjustment, objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) — a three-member panel that can direct the Assessing Officer to reduce or eliminate the adjustment before the final assessment order. DRP proceedings require the same economic rigour as the original TPO proceedings — GP provides it.
Learn More →Appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's dedicated Transfer Pricing bench — where the most significant TP adjustments are ultimately contested. TP appeals at ITAT require the combination of economic testimony, accounting analysis, and legal argument that GP provides from one team. The TP bench's jurisprudence on comparables selection, functional characterisation, intangibles valuation, and captive service centre margins is one of the most rapidly evolving bodies of tax law in India — GP tracks it in real time.
Learn More →Transfer pricing for intangible transactions — royalties, technology licences, brand fees, and software payments between Indian and overseas group entities. DEMPE analysis under BEPS Action 8-10: identifying which entities perform development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of intangibles and the TP consequences. Hard-to-value intangibles methodology. India's specific regime for intangible transactions under Section 92B and the OECD Guidelines Chapter VI.
Learn More →TP analysis for group restructurings — conversion of full-risk distributors to limited-risk entities, outsourcing of functions from India to a foreign parent, and exit charges on the transfer of ongoing concern value. Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under India's DTAAs — the mechanism for resolving double taxation where both India and a treaty partner have adjusted the same transaction. MAP applications for Australian, Singapore, UAE, and UK treaty partners where bilateral APA has not yet resolved the dispute.
Learn More →The arm's length price is determined by reference to comparables — independent companies performing similar functions under similar circumstances. The selection of comparables is the most contested issue in every TP dispute: the TPO will use one set of comparables; the taxpayer another. The difference in the resulting margin range can mean the difference between a nil adjustment and a demand of hundreds of crores. GP's economic analysts work with the same databases the TPO uses — and know precisely which comparables the Department is likely to select, which to challenge, and which to defend. The comparables strategy is built before the documentation is filed, not after the TPO's order arrives.
An Indian startup that issues shares to an overseas investor at a valuation above fair market value faces Section 56(2)(viib) — the angel tax provision. An Indian startup that issues shares to an overseas related party at below fair market value faces a TP adjustment. The valuation used for one purpose must be consistent with the valuation used for the other. GP advises founders and investors on the TP and Section 56(2) intersection — ensuring the valuation methodology chosen for the fundraise is defensible against both the TP Officer and the Assessing Officer simultaneously.
A transfer pricing adjustment in India — adding back ₹50 crore of alleged under-pricing on services billed to an Australian parent — means India has taxed ₹50 crore that Australia has also taxed in the parent company's hands. The same income has been taxed twice. The DTAA's Mutual Agreement Procedure is the remedy — but MAP requires the Indian Competent Authority and the Australian ATO to negotiate a resolution. That negotiation is conducted by tax lawyers who understand both jurisdictions. GP has the bilateral capability across India's five key corridors. Most Indian TP advisers do not.
A TP defence has three components: the economic analysis of comparables and margins, the accounting characterisation of functions and risks, and the legal interpretation of the arm's length standard and treaty provisions. Most Indian TP advisers are strong on one or two of these. GP provides all three. The economic analyst who selects the comparables, the CA who characterises the entity's functions, and the lawyer who argues the ITAT appeal are in the same office — not three separate firms coordinated by email.
A bilateral APA eliminates double taxation risk on agreed transactions for up to five years — but it requires the Indian Competent Authority and the treaty partner's competent authority to agree. That agreement is shaped by the positions taken by both sides' advisers. GP's founding directors have practised in Australia, Singapore, the GCC, Hong Kong, and London. When we negotiate a bilateral APA between India and Australia, we understand what the ATO's Competent Authority team is likely to accept — because we understand the Australian side of the same transaction.
Most TP documentation is prepared as an annual compliance exercise — filed before the statutory deadline, rarely stress-tested against the TPO's methodology. GP's TP documentation is prepared with the TPO challenge in mind from the first day: the comparables are selected knowing which ones the TPO is likely to exclude or include; the functional analysis is drafted knowing which characterisation the Department will contest; the method selection is justified knowing the alternative methods the TPO will prefer. The document that survives a TPO challenge is not the document filed last — it is the document designed to be defended.
Complete confidentiality maintained. These matters illustrate the nature and depth of our transfer pricing practice.
Advised an ASX-listed financial services group on a bilateral APA between India and Australia covering IT services provided by its Bangalore captive centre to the Australian parent. The Indian TPO had proposed a ₹34 crore adjustment in three consecutive years on the TNMM mark-up. GP prepared the APA application with an economic analysis addressing the specific functions performed, risks borne, and assets employed by the Indian entity. The bilateral APA was agreed at a mark-up that eliminated the disputed adjustment for five years, with rollback eliminating three years of prior litigation.
Represented an Indian pharmaceutical company before the ITAT in a ₹62 crore TP adjustment arising from the Department's characterisation of the company's marketing expenditure as creating a marketing intangible — a "bright line" excess that it argued was an international transaction with the foreign licensor. GP's ITAT submission applied the post-BEPS DEMPE analysis to demonstrate that the Indian entity was performing only routine distribution functions with no intangible development role — and that the marketing expenditure was commercially justified at the entity level without any TP dimension. The ITAT deleted ₹48 crore of the adjustment.
Advised a GCC-based conglomerate on a MAP application arising from conflicting TP adjustments: the Indian TPO had reduced the interest rate on an intra-group loan from the UAE parent (arguing the Indian entity could have borrowed more cheaply), while the UAE's tax authority had accepted the original rate as arm's length. The same interest expense was being denied in India and taxed in UAE simultaneously. GP prepared the MAP application to the Indian Competent Authority, coordinating with the UAE side's advisers to present a consistent position. The MAP resulted in a bilateral agreement eliminating double taxation on the disputed amount.
The practice is led by a TP-specialist CA with deep benchmarking and APA experience, working alongside a tax lawyer with ITAT and High Court TP litigation experience. The team includes economic analysts trained in the comparable company selection methodologies used by the Indian TPO — allowing GP to anticipate the Department's approach and build the rebuttal before the TPO's reference arrives.
For bilateral APA and MAP matters, the practice draws directly on GP's international corridor expertise — the Australia, Singapore, GCC, Hong Kong, and London desk capabilities that allow GP to understand and advise on both sides of a cross-border TP dispute simultaneously. This is the bilateral capability that distinguishes GP from every other Indian TP advisory practice.
Analysis of the APA programme's outcomes by industry and transaction type — what mark-ups have been agreed for captive IT centres, what methods have been accepted for intangibles, and which transactions remain most contested between the Department and taxpayers.
Read Bulletin →The India-Australia bilateral APA framework, MAP procedure under the DTAA, and the specific TP issues that arise most frequently for Australian corporates with Indian captive centres, procurement entities, and joint ventures.
Read Guide →Whether you need annual TP documentation, are defending a TPO adjustment, pursuing a bilateral APA, or managing a MAP application — our integrated CA, economist, and lawyer team responds within 24 hours with a commercially grounded assessment of your position.
By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy. All communications are strictly confidential. Attorney-client privilege applies from first contact.