---

As businesses expand across borders, navigating complex transfer pricing regulations becomes critical. At VSTN Consultancy, a global transfer pricing firm, we specialize in helping companies stay compliant and competitive across key markets including:

India | UAE | USA | KSA | Dubai | Asia Pacific | Europe | Africa | North America

Whether you’re preparing for benchmarking intercompany transactions, or developing robust TP documentation, our team is here to support your international strategy and Compliance.

Contact us today to explore how we can partner with you to optimize your global transfer pricing approach.

#TransferPricing #TransferPricingFirm#VSTNConsultancy #TaxCompliance #IndiaUAEUSA

#TPExperts#TransferPricingExperts#GlobalTransferPricingFirm

UAE Tax Return: Corporate Tax Guide

Transfer pricing aspects

November 2024

---

Background

The UAE Federal Tax Authority (FTA) issued Corporate Tax Guide | CTGTXR1 on 11 November 2024, that provides guidance to taxpayers on Corporate Tax Returns. In order to provide ease of reference for tax payers, the document provides guidance on filing and completing the Corporate Tax Return in the manner that generally appears in the actual tax return in the EmaraTax account. The document also clarifies that it is not intended to provide technical guidance on the implementation of the UAE Corporate Tax Law. Instead it references the legislation, specific technical guidance issued by the FTA against the respective sections.

The alert covers sections of the corporate tax return relating to transfer pricing, along with its respective analysis.

Corporate Tax Return – TP areas

The Corporate Tax return is required to be submitted by taxable person within the due date viz., within 9 months of the end of its Tax Period. The Tax return has several parts for the Taxable Person to report their Taxable Income including any relevant adjustments, such as exemptions and reliefs claimed, which are:

• Part A – Taxable Person information
• Part B – Elections
• Part C – Accounting Schedule
• Part D – Accounting Adjustments and Exempt Income
• Part E – Reliefs
• Part F – Other Adjustments
• Part G – Tax Liability and Tax Credits
• Part H – Review and Declaration
• Part I – Schedules

The key aspects of the Tax Return that have transfer pricing implications and its respective analysis / takeaways is provided below:

Vstn Consultancy

A) Taxable person information:

The initial section of the Tax Return requires the taxable person to provide whether they are a member of a Multinational Enterprise Group i.e., Group means where group has two or more companies in different jurisdictions AND has total consolidated group revenue > AED 3.15 billion. Through this the FTA may identify and track taxpayers requiring to maintain local and master file and would be an input for overall internal risk assessment.

B) Free Zone:

There is specific section in the Corporate Tax Return where taxpayers in Free Zones have to specifically provide whether there are any Related Party transactions which have been undertaken as per Article 34 of the Corporate Tax Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 47 of 2022 on the Taxation of Corporations and Businesses issued by the FTA), and whether transfer pricing documentation has been maintained as per Article 55 of the Corporate Tax Law.

C) Related party Transactions:

The information on related party transactions in the Corporate Tax Return appears in two segments. The first segment requires information to be provided by all the taxpayers, based on which Schedules (second segment) would be enabled. Key points to be noted w.r.t. related party transactions are summarized below.

1. In the first segment taxpayers have to provide whether there were any transactions with Related Parties in the current Tax Period. Taxpayers also have to confirm whether the aggregate value of all transactions with Related Parties exceeded AED 40 million. While computing this threshold dividends are not to be considered. If this threshold is met, the Schedule for providing detailed information on the related party transactions would be enabled. The Schedule for related party transactions consists of the following fields that have to be provided:
   • Legal name of the related party,
   • Transaction Category (7 categories),
   • Country of tax residence of the Related Party
   • UAE Corporate Tax TRN or taxpayer identification number (TIN) issued by a foreign tax authority
   • Gross income/expenses
   • Transfer pricing method (6 methods)
   • Arm’s length value of the related party transactions
2. For detailed disclosure of related party transactions in the Schedule, there is a second threshold in addition to above viz., AED 4 million for the respective category. There are seven categories of related party transactions as per the Corporate Tax return i.e., Goods, Services, Intellectual Property, Interest, Assets, Liabilities and Other, against which disclosures have to be made in Schedules. Only where the aggregate value of transactions for the said category exceeds AED 4 million, the taxpayer will have to disclose the nature of transaction and the respective related

3. Earlier when the format of the disclosure form was released, one of the major observation was the absence of “Other” Method in the said disclosure form. This guidance provides for “Other” Method as a transfer pricing method. Further if “Other” Method is selected, the taxpayer will have to provide the description of what constitutes the other Transfer Pricing method applied.
4. In the Schedules, gross value of income will have to be provided. Gross income is defined as income before any deductions. In certain instances, the financial statements might disclose the net income, in which cases the taxpayer should maintain reconciliation between the amount disclosed as per the Tax Return and amount as per the financial statements – with back-up for the differences / reconciliation.
5. While for freezone taxpayers alone there is a specific declaration requested for TP documentation, there is no such declaration which has been called for those crossing the documentation related thresholds for non- free zone taxpayers.

D) Connected Person

Taxpayers will have to confirm whether aggregate value of transactions with connected persons exceeds AED 500,000. In addition to the said threshold the below disclosures are required where the transactions with connected persons exceed AED 500,000 per connected person.

With regard to connected persons, information to be provided by the taxpayers include legal name of the connected persons, Tax identification number of the connected person, payment or benefit to the connected persons, description of the payment or benefit, value of transactions with connected persons and market value of the said transactions. Key points to be noted include:

1. Description of the nature of transaction is to provided, and not just whether it is a payment or benefit. This description will provide FTA the nature of such payment, and would provide a high level indication on the rendition for such services.
2. Each nature of the transaction with connected persons will have to be disclosed separately. For example where salary payments as well as rent payments are made, the two transactions should be separately disclosed.
3. For transactions with connected persons, the Tax Return does not require selection of any transfer pricing method, but requires the market value of the said transactions. Nonetheless, taxpayers need to adopt the arm’s length price analysis to arrive at the market value.

E) Adjustments

In case of differences between price as per the financial statements and the arm’ length price/market value the upward/downward adjustment will be automatically computed in the tax return. In connection with these adjustments, following are the key takeaways:

1. For both related party transactions and transactions with connected persons, the arm’s length value / market value can be equal to amount as per the related party transactions / transactions with connected persons, only where the taxpayer can demonstrate the same. The UAE Corporate Tax Law requires all related party transactions should be on arm’s length basis.
2. In the main part of the Tax Return (in the first segment) taxpayers will have to manually provide the Additions and Deductions as a result of adjustments to transactions which were not at arm’s length . For example, if the sales to Related party is AED 5 million and the arm’s length value is AED 5.05 million, the difference of 0.05 million is the addition. In cases where the sales, for example is AED 2.03 million but the arm’s length value is AED 2 million, the deduction is AED 0.03 million. The Corporate Tax guide states the addition and Deduction should not be netted, but should be disclosed separately. In case of any Deduction, in our example AED 0.03 million, the Corporate Tax guide specifically states that approval from the FTA will have to obtained, and only the deduction approved by the FTA will have to be disclosed in the Tax Return. However, the detailed process for seeking such approval from the FTA is awaited. In case there is no FTA approval then the deduction will be disclosed as zero
3. Further one needs to note that though in the main part of the form, adjustments have to be manually updated by the taxpayers, in the Schedule to the Tax Return, the difference between the arm’s length value /market value and the value of transactions with related parties / connected persons is automatically computed. From this, one can infer that the arm’s length value / market value of ALL transactions with related parties / connected persons will have to be arrived, irrespective of their disclosure in the Tax Return schedules.

F. Others

The Tax return requires that any gains/losses realized in the current Tax Period in relation to assets /liabilities previously received from a Related Party at a non- arm’s length price should be disclosed. This is applicable if amount of consideration paid exceeded the Market Value or consideration paid was lower than the Market Value and Related party had included the difference between the Market Value and the consideration in its Taxable Income.

It is imperative the taxpayers have the local file maintained /adequate documentation on or before filing the Tax Returns to be able to substantiate the arm’s length nature of transactions with related parties / connected persons.

Key takeaway is that during the finalization of the books of accounts, the transactions with related parties / connected persons will have to adjusted to arm’s length value / market value in order to ensure that no further adjustments are needed in the Corporate Tax Return.

Even though taxpayer might not be required to prepare a local file, taxpayers should have a basis / documentation in place to compute the arm’s length price of all transactions with related parties / connected persons.

VSTn Consultancy

TP Compliances: Flowchart

The below flow chart summarizes the applicability of local file and master file requirements along with applicability for disclosure in the Tax Return.

Is Consolidated MNE Group Turnover > AED 3.15 billion

Yes	No
Local File and Master File is applicable	Is Turnover of the taxpayer > AED 200 million

Yes	No
Is Aggregate Value of RP transactions > AED40 million or value of transactions with connected person > AED 500,000	Local File and Master File is not applicable

For RP transactions

Yes	No
Related party Schedule to be filled and completed in the Tax Return	No Need for Related party Schedule to be filled in the Tax Return

Yes	No
Connected persons Schedule to be filled and completed in the Tax Return	No Need for Connected persons Schedule to be filled in the Tax Return

Is the aggregate value for the category of RP transaction > AED 4 million

Yes	No
To report the category in the Related party schedule with each of the RP	No Need to report the category in the Related party schedule

Yes	No
To report the category in the Connected person schedule with each of the connected person	No Need to report the category in the Connected person schedule

All taxpayers irrespective of any thresholds should determine the arm’s length price/market value of all transactions with related parties/connected persons

How VSTN can support

VSTN can support taxpayers to be compliant from a UAE tax perspective, which includes the following:

• Impact assessment of related party transactions / transactions with connected persons.
• Setting of transfer pricing framework / Global Transfer pricing policy.
• Review of existing transfer pricing policies and alignment to industry best practices.
• Undertaking benchmarking analysis for related party transactions/ transactions with connected persons.
• Draft of inter-company agreements. Review of inter-company agreements to ensure alignment with arm’s length principle.
• Preparation of local file and master file.

---

About us

VSTN Consultancy Private Ltd is a boutique Transfer pricing firm with extensive expertise in the field of international taxation and transfer pricing. VSTN Consultancy has been awarded by International Tax Review (ITR) as Best Newcomer in Asia Pacific – 2024 and is recognised as one of the finest performing transfer pricing firms.

Our offering spans the end-to-end Transfer Pricing value chain, including design of intercompany policy and drafting of Interco agreement, ensuring effective implementation of the Transfer Pricing policy, year-end documentation and certification, Global Documentation, BEPS related compliances (including advisory, Masterfile, Country by Country report), safe harbour filing, audit defense before all forums and dispute prevention mechanisms such as Advance Pricing agreement.

We are structured as an inverse pyramid where leadership get involved in all client matters, enabling clients to receive the highest quality of service.

Being a specialized firm, we offer advice that is independent of an audit practice, and deliver it with an uncompromising integrity.

Our expert team bring in cumulative experience of over six decades in the transfer pricing space with Big4s spanning clients, industries and have cutting edge knowledge and capabilities in handling complex TP engagements.

---

As businesses expand across borders, navigating complex transfer pricing regulations becomes critical. At VSTN Consultancy, a global transfer pricing firm, we specialize in helping companies stay compliant and competitive across key markets including:

India | UAE | USA | KSA | Dubai | Asia Pacific | Europe | Africa | North America

Whether you’re preparing for benchmarking intercompany transactions, or developing robust TP documentation, our team is here to support your international strategy and Compliance.

Contact us today to explore how we can partner with you to optimize your global transfer pricing approach.

#TransferPricing #TransferPricingFirm#VSTNConsultancy #TaxCompliance #IndiaUAEUSA

#TPExperts#TransferPricingExperts#GlobalTransferPricingFirm

DEMYSTIFYING INTRA – GROUP SERVICES
IN TRANSFER PRICING

Introduction

The international transaction of Intra-group service (‘IGS’) has been and continues to be one of the most litigated transactions in the transfer pricing landscape. Issues regarding arm’s length pricing and benefits derived from such transactions are constantly under the scanner of transfer pricing officers (‘TPO’). IGS are frequently undertaken by most MNE groups and payments towards the same are generally categorised as ‘Management charges’ by taxpayers despite covering multiple services. There is no specific guidance in Nithya Srinivasan & Nitya Joseph India on considerations for IGS unlike other jurisdictions, hence the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (‘OECD guidelines’), UN guidance and judicial precedents are relied upon by taxpayers and authorities.

In this article, we seek to explore when an IGS has been rendered, how the same is remunerated in accordance with the arm’s length principle, documentation requirements, global practices, as well as local and global jurisprudence covering this issue.

What are intra-group services?

Every entity requires various services in connection with the operations of its business. While independent entities may acquire these from a specialised service provider or perform the service in-house, an MNE group in need of a service may opt to acquire the same from one or more members in the same MNE group (i.e. intra-group). This centralization of activities is carried out to ensure consistency and achieve economies of scale and the services are usually performed by the headquarters or by a regional hub. Examples of such services include IT, accounting, payroll, legal, HR services.

The OECD guidelines emphasize that in any IGS, two important issues need to be addressed-One, whether IGS have actually been rendered and second, to determine whether the charge for such IGS is in accordance with the arm’s length principle.

Determining whether IGS have been rendered

The determination that IGS have been actually rendered by related parties, is the first critical step as it lays the foundation for transfer pricing analysis. Further during the course of transfer pricing audits, benchmarking these services alone would not be sufficient, and detailed analysis will have to be undertaken to demonstrate that services have been rendered.

Need-Benefit Test

It is imperative to understand whether services availed from related parties are required by the recipient i.e. necessity of the services for operations as well as the benefit derived from the services. This is analyzed by understanding whether the activity performed by related parties provide an economic or commercial value to enhance or maintain an entity’s business position. Under the arm’s length principle an activity can be ascertained to be an IGS only when an independent party would be willing to pay for such services or perform the same by itself. The benefit test has been adopted by multiple countries and is routinely applied by Indian tax authorities while scrutinising IGS.

Non-chargeable activities

Not all activities performed by MNE Group members can be considered as IGS as third parties would not be willing to pay for these activities. Hence, one would need to carefully evaluate nature of activities before categorizing them as IGS. Certain non-chargeable activities are noted below:

Shareholder activities

These are activities performed by one of the MNE Group members (typically the parent or a regional holding company) solely because of its ownership interest in one or more other group members, i.e. in its capacity as shareholder. As per the OECD guidelines, examples include costs relating to the juridical structure of the parent company (such as meetings of shareholders of the parent, issuing of shares in the parent company), costs relating to reporting requirements of the parent company (including financial reporting and audit of the parent company, consolidation of reports) etc. It is critical to evaluate activities on a case-to-case basis. Eg: Whether management services rendered could be classified as shareholder services or whether the same would be a chargeable service.

Duplication

This refers to situations where services rendered by a service provider to a group member duplicate the activities being performed by the service recipient in-house or services availed from third parties. At arm’s length, an independent entity would not consider availing services where it would duplicate the existing services availed or already being performed in-house. IGS need to be different, additional, or complementary to the activities performed in-house. Hence, mapping of the services with the departmental chart of the service recipient and differentiating the services provided by HQ with the inhouse personnel is very critical.

Incidental Benefits

These are services performed by the parent or a regional hub to some of the group members which incidentally provides benefits to other group members. Any benefits from passive association (benefit merely on account of association with the Group without any specific activity being performed) would also be an incidental benefit. For example, higher credit rating due to association with a particular Group.

Determining an arm’s length charge

Post ascertaining the IGS, the next step would be to determine whether the charges for the services are at arm’s length. Broadly there are two methods of charging viz., Direct-Charge method and Indirect-Charge method.

Direct-Charge Method

Under this method, the arrangements made for charging for IGS can be readily identified, and Group members are charged for specific services. The direct-charge method would be most reliable as the basis for the payment can be clearly identified. However, this may not be practically possible since MNEs may not record the time spent or costs incurred separately for each service recipient, or services rendered to Group members may not be rendered to third parties.

Indirect-charge Method

This method is more commonly used wherein cost allocation and apportionment methods are used as a basis for calculating an arm’s length charge. Charging for IGS has to be supported by a foreseeable benefit for the recipients. Selection of reasonable allocation keys for costs allocation is a key point. Some allocation keys generally used are number of users, heat tickets (for IT fees), headcount for payroll etc.

Cost pool and Profit mark-up

Service providers would need to calculate a cost pool annually including all the costs incurred in delivering the services. This includes both direct and indirect costs including a relevant portion of operating expenses. The above pool can broadly be categorized into costs that can be directly identified to the respective related party and costs which have been incurred for more than one related parties. For the costs incurred for various related parties, the costs can be allocated based on an appropriate allocation key. The apportioned costs plus the costs directly incurred for the respective related parties will be the cost base on which the arm’ length mark-up will have to be computed. To determine the profit mark-up to be applied, one can undertake independent benchmarking using Global databases from a service provider perspective.

To decide whether an arm’s length mark-up on costs is necessary, the value addition of the service provider needs to be evaluated. In many business circumstances between two independent parties, there might be some activities that would be undertaken/ certain costs incurred by the service provider solely on account of administrative convenience. These pass-through costs are usually recovered by the service provider on a cost-to-cost basis from the service recipient, without mark-up being charged.

More often than not, focus is more on mark-up charged on IGS, leaving behind big picture i.e., cost base/cost pool. Determining accurate cost base is essential to arrive at an arm’s length cross-charge, and accordingly, directly identifiable costs, pass through costs, etc., ought to be clearly identified for cost pool.

Simplified approach for low value-adding IGS (LVAS)

The OECD guidelines have provided a simplified approach for low value-adding activities which aims to reduce efforts of taxpayers in meeting benefit tests and demonstrating arm’s length charges as well as the efforts of tax authorities while performing review of IGS. This approach allocates the cost incurred in providing services to the respective service recipients and applies the prescribed mark-up.

For availing the simplified approach, the IGS should be low value-adding in nature. The OECD guidelines define LVAS as services performed by one/ more members of the MNE Group on behalf of other members which:

a) are of a supportive nature,

b) are not part of the core business of the MNE Group,

c) do not require the use of unique and valuable intangibles and do not result in creation of such intangibles, and

d) do not involve the assumption of significant risks by the service provider or give rise to creation of significant risks for service provider.

Further the OECD Guidelines provide a list of activities that are excluded under the simplified approach like services constituting the core business of the MNE Group, research and development services, sales, marketing and distribution activities, services of corporate senior management etc.

In addition, the OECD Guidelines also provide an illustrative list of LVAS which include Accounting and auditing services, Human resources activities, Information technology services etc. While these may be the principal activity of the service provider, they should not relate to the core business of the Group.

Documentation

Maintaining proper documentation is critical for substantiating IGS payments before the tax authorities. Tax authorities generally request evidence to prove receipt, necessity and benefits derived from such services.

Some of the documentation that can be maintained include:

• Intercompany agreements
• Workings for cost allocation, basis for allocation keys
• Description of services and benefits derived. Clear identification of category of services (Technical or LVAS) to be done. In spite of receiving varied services from Group members, taxpayers customarily term them as ‘Management charges’, without emphasising the technicality of services, which might mislead tax authorities to categorise them as LVAS. Instead, one may look at adopting apt nomenclature, eg: production support, technical support, marketing support etc., thereby demarcating from LVAS.
• Differentiation of services availed from different Group members to substantiate mark-up charged (eg: one Group member may charge mark-up on allocated costs while the other does not)
• Details of similar service availed from third parties in the past, to substantiate need for the service
• Copies of agreements entered by the Group members with third party service providers (eg: for IT licenses cost recharge), details of software applications to which access is provided, details of heat tickets raised in case of IT helpdesk services
• Email correspondences, minutes of meetings/calls, travel details etc.

The above data should be sourced on a contemporaneous basis to handle litigation seamlessly.

Global practices

Several countries have laid down specific guidelines for IGS which follow the OECD/UN guidance. The LVAS simplified approach has been adopted by the EU countries, New Zealand, UAE, Korea, Saudi Arabia etc. Some countries also have additional/different requirements in connection with IGS.

Singapore taxpayers can choose to apply 5% cost mark-up for a list of routine support services as an alternative to performing detailed transfer pricing analysis. Taxpayers are exempt from preparing TP documentation for these transactions. In addition, in the case of any services carried out by taxpayers which do not fall under the list of routine support services, Singapore taxpayers can opt for the OECD simplified approach provided the required conditions are met. Further, in the case of cost-pooling contracts where the costs of routine support services are shared among Group members, 0% mark-up on costs is acceptable.

Similarly, in the US, the IRS has prescribed the Services Cost Method (‘SCM’) which is a specified transfer pricing method under which certain LVAS can be charged out at cost at the election of the taxpayer in certain circumstances.

In countries like China, regulatory requirements may restrict deductibility of IGS charge. For fees paid by subsidiaries that receive IGS, the following six tests should be used to determine the arm’s length nature of services: benefit test, necessity test, duplication test, value creation test, remuneration test and authenticity test.

Issues under assessment/Local jurisprudence

Considering the very terminology of IGS, it becomes an easy target for tax authorities to impose transfer pricing adjustments. Tax authorities generally adopt an aggressive approach and the issues raised include:

• Disregarding the evidence submitted by taxpayers and imposing adjustments on the ground that need-benefit test not satisfied
• Determining Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’) as Nil under CUP method stating no independent party would pay for such services
• Not permitting aggregation of services under TNMM

There are multiple cases of the Tribunal both in favour of taxpayers and Revenue. Majority of cases pertaining to IGS at the ITAT level are remanded back to the lower authorities for verifying the need-benefit test documentation. Some of the principles which emanate from judicial precedents in favour of taxpayers are:

• TPO cannot question commercial expediency and does not have the authority to disallow an expenditure based on whether benefit received
• TPO can only determine the ALP by selecting comparables in accordance with the 6 prescribed methods and not on an ad-hoc basis
• Receiving the same services on gratuitous basis in the earlier years does not mean that ALP of these services is ‘nil’.

One of the important judgements was in the case of Cushman and Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (Delhi High Court – ITA No. 475 of 2012) wherein it was held TPO’s authority is to conduct a transfer pricing analysis to determine ALP and not to determine whether there is a service or not from which assessee benefits. Therefore, TPO cannot determine ALP of payments made to related parties as nil taking a view that assessee did not derive any benefit from services received.

In the case of Frigoglass India (ITA 1906/(DEL)/2015), the TPO preferred to apply CUP as against TNMM adopted by the Assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi ITAT held that where no comparable transactions had been brought on record by the Assessing Officer or even by the DRP or Revenue during the ITAT appeal, the approach of the Revenue could not be accepted.

In the matter of Avery Dennison (ITA nos. 4869 & 4934/(DEL)/2014), the ITAT rejected Nil ALP determined by TPO / CIT(A) in respect of some of the services on the contention that no benefit was derived by assessee. ITAT accepted ALP determined by assessee by aggregating transactions under TNMM, observing that assessee was predominantly a manufacturer and that services received by assessee from its related parties were intrinsically linked to core business operations.

Options available

The Indian Safe Harbour rules cover payments towards LVAS received, with a threshold of INR 10 crores and where the mark-up on cost does not exceed 5%. Indian taxpayers may resort to Safe harbour rules to ring-fence transactions from tax litigation where certificate of cost pool workings is required and the process of a need benefit test documentation is eliminated. In the Union Budget for 2024-25, the Finance Minister had mentioned that the scope of safe harbour rules would be expanded and revised to make it more attractive. One would need to wait to see whether there would be any increase in the threshold or whether the threshold could be revised to a financial ratio like percentage of IGS costs to total costs of the service recipient.

Considering the protracted litigation process in India, many taxpayers also opt for alternate dispute mechanisms like Advance Pricing Agreement or Mutual Agreement Procedure.

Global jurisprudence

Global case laws also emphasise the importance of robust documentation in defending IGS charges. In one of the cases adjudicated by the French Administrative Court of Appeal (France vs. SMAP, March 2021, Administrative Court of Appeal, Case No. 19VE01161), the court had ruled that the sums paid by the taxpayer to its Group company termed as IGS constituted pure generosity granted in an interest other than that of the taxpayer’s company. Further no documents had been produced to establish the reality of services rendered by the Group company.

In a judgement by Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic (Czech Republic vs STOCK Plzeň-Božkov, s. r. o., May 2023, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 10 Afs 93/2021 – 69), the taxpayer (STOCK) had deducted costs for production consultancy services and internal support services allegedly received from related parties. The tax authorities disallowed deduction of the costs for tax purposes on the basis that the evidence provided regarding the nature and pricing of the services was insufficient. The Court ruled in favour of STOCK in relation to the production consultancy services stating that the tax authority’s requirement that the company document each individual ‘piece of advice’ and quantity the benefits in minute detail was unreasonable. According to the Court, it was sufficient to explain how the production services were provided and what benefits the company derived from them. However, in the same case, the court also agreed with the tax authorities on the internal support services. The documents, witness statements and e-mails provided by STOCK were not sufficient to prove that the services had been received.

Conclusion

IGS of all types are routinely undertaken by MNEs. Hence, a proactive approach of pricing the IGS as per the arm’s length principle and maintaining strong documentation will contribute greatly to justifying these transactions before the tax authorities. In recent times, technology tools also play an important role in efficient collation and maintenance of supporting documentation (emails, contracts etc.) on a contemporaneous basis. Further, they can aid in automation of the cost pool allocation process to ensure costs are allocated among Group members accurately.

---

As businesses expand across borders, navigating complex transfer pricing regulations becomes critical. At VSTN Consultancy, a global transfer pricing firm, we specialize in helping companies stay compliant and competitive across key markets including:

India | UAE | USA | KSA | Dubai | Asia Pacific | Europe | Africa | North America

Whether you’re preparing for benchmarking intercompany transactions, or developing robust TP documentation, our team is here to support your international strategy and Compliance.

Contact us today to explore how we can partner with you to optimize your global transfer pricing approach.

#TransferPricing #TransferPricingFirm#VSTNConsultancy #TaxCompliance #IndiaUAEUSA

#TPExperts#TransferPricingExperts#GlobalTransferPricingFirm