Transfer Pricing refers to the pricing of goods, services, funds, or intangible property transferred between associated enterprises (AEs) located in different tax jurisdictions. Because multinational enterprises (MNEs) operate across multiple countries, they frequently engage in intra-group transactions. These transactions, if not regulated, may be manipulated to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions. To prevent such practices, the Income Tax Act, 1961 introduced a comprehensive transfer pricing framework under Sections 92 to 92F, guided by the internationally accepted Arm’s Length Principle (ALP).
Transfer pricing is not merely a computational mechanism; it is a critical anti-abuse provision aimed at ensuring fairness, transparency, and equity in global taxation. As courts have repeatedly emphasized, taxation must reflect “real income,” and transactions within group entities cannot be used as devices to avoid taxes, a principle rooted in the landmark judgment McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO where the Supreme Court condemned colourable tax avoidance schemes. The TP regime ensures that profits are appropriately allocated to India when value-creating activities take place within Indian jurisdiction.
Legal Framework of Transfer Pricing in India
The statutory foundation for transfer pricing lies primarily in Sections 92, 92A, 92B, 92C, 92CA, 92D, and 92F. These provisions define Associated Enterprises, International Transactions, ALP methodologies, documentation, and the authority of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
Section 92 – Computation of Income Having Regard to ALP
Section 92 mandates that any income arising from an international transaction between AEs must be computed at arm’s length. This requirement ensures that artificial or excessive pricing does not erode India’s taxable base. The Delhi High Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT highlighted that ALP seeks to establish neutrality by ensuring that conditions governing related-party transactions mirror those between independent enterprises.
Section 92A – Associated Enterprise
Section 92A defines AEs through two primary criteria:
- Participation in management, control, or capital, and
- Specific deeming relationships such as significant shareholding, dependency on intangibles, or control over supply chains.
Courts have held in Diageo India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT that AE determination must be grounded in factual analysis, reflecting actual control and economic dependence, not merely legal ownership.
Section 92B – International Transaction
Section 92B covers transactions such as purchase, sale, leasing, services, cost sharing agreements, financing arrangements, and transfers of intangibles. The Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI clarified that capital receipts which do not generate income cannot be subjected to transfer pricing adjustments, reinforcing the principle that TP applies only where income is chargeable under the Act.
Arm’s Length Principle (ALP)
The ALP requires that international transactions between AEs be priced as if they were undertaken between unrelated enterprises. It ensures global profit allocation aligns with economic activities and value generation.
Methods for Determining ALP
Section 92C lays down five primary methods and one residuary method:
- Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method
- Resale Price Method (RPM)
- Cost Plus Method (CPM)
- Profit Split Method (PSM)
- Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM)
- Other Method (recognised through Rule 10AB allowing valuation techniques such as discounted cash flow).
In L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, the Delhi High Court upheld TNMM as the most widely applicable method for routine distribution and manufacturing activities, while CUP remains ideal for commodity-based transactions. Courts have advocated meticulous functional analysis—examining functions performed, assets employed, and risks assumed (FAR analysis)—to ensure accuracy in selecting comparables.
Also Read: Introduction to Taxation Law
Role of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)
Under Section 92CA, the Assessing Officer may refer cases to the TPO to determine ALP. The TPO evaluates comparables, FAR, and documentation to arrive at an adjustment. In Aztec Software v. ACIT, it was held that the TPO’s role is limited to determining ALP and does not extend to assessing tax liability or business purpose, ensuring checks and balances within the administration.
“Tip: Always support FAR analysis with industry reports, segmental accounts, and clear functional classification.”
Transfer Pricing Documentation
Section 92D and Rule 10D mandate comprehensive documentation, including:
- Nature of international transaction
- Economic analysis
- FAR analysis
- Benchmarking report
- Comparable selection
- Pricing policies
The burden of proof lies on the taxpayer, and inadequate documentation often results in adverse adjustments. Courts in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. reiterated that commercial expediency cannot be questioned if documentation supports genuine business need, but ALP testing remains mandatory.
Safe Harbour Rules
To reduce litigation, India introduced Safe Harbour Rules under Rule 10TA–TG, allowing taxpayers to adopt predefined margins for specified transactions. This mechanism simplifies compliance for routine industries such as back-office operations, IT services, and contract R&D.
Advance Pricing Agreements (APA)
APAs under Section 92CC provide certainty by allowing taxpayers and authorities to agree on ALP in advance. APAs can be unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral. The introduction of rollback provisions by the Finance Act, 2014 enabled greater consistency in tax treatment, reducing disputes significantly.
“Tip: APA is highly beneficial for MNEs with large, recurring cross-border transactions – it ensures long-term tax certainty.”
Secondary Adjustments
Introduced in 2017, secondary adjustments (Section 92CE) require taxpayers to bring back excess money retained abroad due to primary TP adjustments. Failure to do so results in the deemed advance rule, leading to imputed interest income.
Penalties Related to Transfer Pricing
Penalties under Sections 271AA, 271G, and 270A apply for inadequate documentation, incorrect reporting, and underreporting. Courts have upheld strict penalty provisions, viewing documentation as a taxpayer obligation essential for transparency.
Judicial Approach to Transfer Pricing
Indian courts have played a transformative role in shaping TP jurisprudence:
- CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. stressed “commercial rationale” consideration but insisted on ALP adjustment where required.
- Sony Ericsson established principles for marketing intangibles and distributor margins.
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. ACIT cautioned against speculative adjustments in AMP expenses without clear evidence of AE benefit.
These cases demonstrate that TP law is both technical and interpretative, requiring a balance between economic realities and legal principles.
Conclusion
Transfer Pricing in India has evolved into a sophisticated and robust system combining statutory rules, OECD principles, and judicial interpretation. Its primary goal is to prevent profit shifting while ensuring fairness and predictability for multinational enterprises. For law students, understanding TP is essential because it sits at the intersection of tax law, international law, accounting, and economic theory. The growing global focus on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) further increases its importance as nations cooperate to curb tax avoidance.
A solid grasp of TP concepts equips future practitioners to analyze complex cross-border transactions, handle tax disputes, and advise businesses engaged in global operations.
Also Read: How to Choose Between Corporate Law and Litigation in 2025