Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes
PRESS RELEASE
New Delhi, 29th March, 2016
Sub: Signing of 11 unilateral Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs)- regarding.
The Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) programme was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 to provide a predictable and non-adversarial tax regime and to reduce litigation in the Indian transfer pricing regime. Taking this programme forward, the Central Board of Direct Taxes signed 11 unilateral APAs on 28th March, 2016. With this signing, India has entered into 59 bilateral and/or unilateral APAs. 50 of these agreements have been signed in the current financial year. The agreements cover a range of international transactions, including corporate guarantees, royalty, software development services, IT enabled services and trading. The agreements pertain to different industrial sectors like telecom, media, automobiles, IT services, etc. Some of the agreements have rollback provisions and provide certainty to the taxpayers for 9 years with regard to the covered international transactions.
Rollback provisions in APAs were introduced in the July 2014 Budget to provide certainty on the pricing of international transactions for 4 years (rollback years) preceding the first year from which APA becomes applicable. With the notification of Rollback rules in March 2015, the taxpayer has been provided the option to choose certainty in transfer pricing matters with the Government for a total of nine years (5 future years and 4 prior years).
Since the notification of the APA scheme on 30.08.2012, approximately 580 applications for APAs have been received and about half of these contain a request for the Rollback provisions. The number of applications is indicative of the wide international and national appreciation of the India’s APA programme’s ability to address complex transfer pricing issues in a fair and transparent manner.
(Shefali Shah)
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Media and Technical Policy)
and Official Spokesperson, CBDT
Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…
High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…
Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…
Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…
Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…
CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…