Written by the Delhi Legal Company India Entry & FDI Advisory team · Last updated August 2026 · Reviewed against the Income-tax Act, 2025 and the Income Tax Rules, 2026
Introduction
An advance ruling used to be final. It is not any more, and that single change decides whether the mechanism is worth using.
Under the old Authority for Advance Rulings, a ruling was binding and could not be appealed. You applied, you got an answer from a body chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge, and the question was settled.
Two things replaced that. The Authority ceased operating on 1 September 2021 and was replaced by the Board for Advance Rulings — a panel of two revenue officers rather than a judicial body. And rulings became appealable to the High Court within sixty days, by either side, including the Department.
So a foreign company can now spend six months and a substantial fee obtaining a ruling, and then find the Department appealing it. That is not the certainty the mechanism was built to deliver, and any decision to use it has to start from that fact.
It does not follow that advance rulings are useless. For some questions — treaty eligibility, permanent establishment, characterisation of a payment — a ruling still resolves in six months what an assessment and appeal would take years to reach. But the analysis is different now, and there is one timing rule that closes the door entirely if you get it wrong.
This guide covers what changed, who can apply, what you can and cannot ask, the bar that catches most applicants, and when a foreign company should actually use it.
About this guide
Delhi Legal Company works exclusively with foreign companies establishing and operating in India. Advance rulings are a tool most foreign groups have heard of and few have assessed properly, usually because the analysis they are working from predates the 2021 restructuring.
Where a provision is settled we state it with the section. Where the framework has moved — and it has moved twice, in 2021 and again under the Income-tax Act, 2025 — we give both references so older material can be placed.
Primary sources: the Income Tax Department for the Income-tax Act, 2025, the Income Tax Rules, 2026 and the Department’s handbook on advance rulings; and the Finance Act, 2021 for the transition from the Authority to the Board.
1. What an advance ruling is
An advance ruling is the determination of a question of law or fact related to the tax liability arising from transactions already undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by an applicant. The purpose of this mechanism is to provide clarity to taxpayers, giving them a clear-cut idea of their tax liability in advance for a given set of transactions.
An advance ruling pronounced by the Authority is binding on the applicant, the Commissioner, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and all income-tax authorities subordinate to the Commissioner, but only in respect of the specific transaction for which the ruling was sought.
Two features of that definition matter.
It covers proposed transactions. You do not have to do the thing first. That is the whole point — the ruling informs the decision rather than defending it afterwards.
It is transaction-specific. A ruling on one arrangement does not settle a different one, and it does not bind the Department in relation to any other taxpayer.
2. What changed, and why it changes the calculus
| Authority for Advance Rulings | Board for Advance Rulings | |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Ceased operation effective 1 September 2021 | Operating since the notified date |
| Constituted by | Section 245-O of the 1961 Act | Section 245-OB, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021; now Section 381 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 |
| Composition | A retired Judge of the Supreme Court as Chairman, with a revenue member and a law member | Two officers not below the rank of Chief Commissioner |
| Appealable? | No — binding and non-appealable | Yes — to the High Court within 60 days, by either side |
| Framework | Chapter XIX-B, Sections 245N to 245V | Sections 380 to 389 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, with Rules 200 to 202 |
2.1 The composition change
The Authority was a quasi-judicial body headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. The Board is two serving revenue officers.
That is not a criticism of the officers; it is an observation about what the body is. A panel drawn from the revenue administration is being asked to rule on questions where the revenue has an institutional position, and applicants should factor that into their expectation of the outcome rather than assuming the neutrality the old body was designed to provide.
2.2 The appeal change
Under Section 389, the applicant or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may appeal to the High Court within 60 days of receiving the ruling. The High Court may condone a delay of up to 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. This is a change from the original AAR regime where rulings were binding and non-appealable.
Read that carefully: the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may appeal. The Department has the right too.
The consequence for planning is direct. A favourable ruling is not the end of the matter until the sixty days pass without an appeal. Structuring a transaction on the strength of a ruling before that window closes carries a risk that did not exist under the old regime.
2.3 Does that make it worthless?
No, for three reasons.
Most rulings are not appealed. The Department appeals where the amount is large or the point is systemically important, not as a matter of course.
A ruling plus a High Court appeal is still faster than an assessment, a Commissioner (Appeals) round, a Tribunal appeal and then a High Court reference — which is the alternative path to the same answer.
And a ruling in your favour changes the posture of any subsequent dispute. You are defending a determination rather than arguing from scratch.
3. Who can apply
Five categories of applicants are eligible: non-residents, residents transacting with non-residents, specified residents for high-value transactions, residents with pending computation issues, and any person seeking a GAAR determination.
| Category | Typical foreign-group use |
|---|---|
| Non-residents, on their own transactions | The core case — a foreign company asking whether a proposed India transaction is taxable here |
| Residents, on transactions with non-residents | Your Indian subsidiary asking whether it must withhold on a payment to the parent |
| Specified residents, for high-value transactions | Notified classes and thresholds |
| Residents with computation issues pending | Limited application |
| Any person, on a GAAR determination | Whether a proposed arrangement is an impermissible avoidance arrangement |
3.1 The two that matter for foreign groups
The first two categories cover almost every situation a foreign group will face, and they are usefully different.
A resident desirous of setting up a joint venture in India in collaboration with a non-resident falls within the resident category — which means the Indian side of a proposed JV can seek a ruling on its own account.
More practically: where the question is “does the Indian subsidiary have to withhold on this payment,” the applicant can be the Indian company. Where the question is “is the foreign parent taxable in India at all,” the applicant is the parent.
Choose the applicant deliberately, because it determines who is bound and who can appeal.
4. What you can ask
An advance ruling determines a question of law or fact in relation to tax liability. In practice the questions foreign groups bring fall into a handful of categories.
| Question | Why a ruling helps |
|---|---|
| Do we have a permanent establishment in India? | Fact-heavy, treaty-dependent, and expensive to get wrong across multiple years — see permanent establishment risk in India |
| Is this payment royalty, fees for technical services, or business profits? | Characterisation decides the rate and whether India can tax at all |
| Are we entitled to treaty benefits? | Limitation on benefits, beneficial ownership and substance questions |
| Is our significant economic presence position correct? | Newly live since the equalisation levy was withdrawn — see equalisation levy and digital taxation |
| What is the withholding obligation on a proposed remittance? | The Indian payer carries the exposure for short deduction |
| Is a proposed restructuring an impermissible avoidance arrangement? | GAAR determination, available to any person |
| Whether income accrues or arises in India on a proposed transaction | Cross-border sale, secondment, software supply |
4.1 The questions that suit a ruling best
Three characteristics make a question a good candidate.
It recurs. A ruling on a payment made once is a ruling on a payment made once. A ruling on the characterisation of an annual licence fee settles the position for the arrangement’s life, subject to the facts staying the same.
The amount is large enough to justify the process. Six months and the fee have to be worth it against the exposure.
The answer changes the decision. If you would proceed either way, the ruling is expensive information. If a positive answer means investing and a negative one means restructuring, it is decision-critical.
5. What you cannot ask — and the bar that catches most applicants
The framework contains mandatory bars. The Board shall not allow an application where they apply.
| Bar | Effect |
|---|---|
| The question is already pending before any income-tax authority, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court | Application rejected — the most common ground |
| The question involves determination of the fair market value of any property | Application rejected |
| The transaction is designed prima facie for the avoidance of income tax | Application rejected, subject to the GAAR category |
5.1 The “already pending” trap
This is the single most important practical point in this guide.
The third clause is particularly strict. It prevents any ruling if the issue is “already pending” before any income-tax authority, Tribunal, or Court. In other words, the door to an advance ruling closes if the Department has already started looking into the matter.
The consequence is that an advance ruling is not a response to a notice. By the time a notice has been issued, the issue is pending and the route is closed.
Groups routinely discover the mechanism at exactly the moment it becomes unavailable. A scrutiny notice arrives asking about a payment to the parent, someone suggests an advance ruling, and it is already too late.
5.2 The mirror provision
The framework also runs the other way. Where a resident applicant has made an application, no income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal shall proceed to decide that issue.
So filing an application freezes the issue on the other side. That is a real benefit and a reason not to delay a decision that has already been taken in principle.
5.3 The valuation bar
The bar on fair market value questions matters more than it looks for foreign groups.
A question framed as “is this price arm’s length” may be treated as a valuation question and refused. Framing matters — a question about the characterisation or taxability of a payment is within scope; a question about what the payment should be is not.
Where the real issue is pricing, the mechanisms are transfer pricing documentation and, for significant arrangements, an advance pricing agreement — see transfer pricing for Indian subsidiaries.
6. Procedure, fee and timeline
Under the Income-tax Act, 2025, effective 1 April 2026, the advance ruling framework is consolidated under Sections 380 to 389, replacing the old Chapter XIX-B (Sections 245N to 245V) of the 1961 Act. Rules 200 to 202 prescribe the application form, fee structure and procedural requirements.
| Step | Detail |
|---|---|
| Application | In the prescribed form, with the fee, setting out the facts and the questions |
| Fee | Tiered from ₹10,000 to ₹10 lakh based on applicant category and transaction value |
| Admission | The Board considers whether any bar applies; the applicant is heard before rejection |
| Hearing | The applicant and the Department present their positions |
| Ruling | Must be pronounced within 6 months |
| Appeal window | 60 days to the High Court, by either side, with up to 30 days condonable |
Confirm the current form number, fee slabs and procedural rules before filing, as the rules under the 2025 Act framework are recent.
6.1 Withdrawal
An application may generally be withdrawn within the prescribed period after filing. Where the application was made without full analysis, or where facts change, withdrawal is preferable to an adverse ruling — because an adverse ruling binds you.
6.2 The six-month timeline in practice
Six months is the statutory outer limit for pronouncement, running from the application. Build the whole process at nine to twelve months from the decision to apply, allowing for preparation, admission and the appeal window.
That is fast relative to litigation and slow relative to a transaction timetable, which is the central tension in deciding whether to use it.
7. What a ruling binds — and what it does not
| Binds | Does not bind |
|---|---|
| The applicant | Any other taxpayer |
| The Commissioner and subordinate income-tax authorities | The Department in relation to a different transaction |
| The Commissioner (Appeals) | The applicant on a different transaction |
| Only the specific transaction ruled on | Later years where the facts have changed |
7.1 It binds you too
This is worth stating because applicants sometimes treat the process as risk-free enquiry.
An adverse ruling is binding on the applicant. You cannot obtain a ruling, dislike it, and proceed on a contrary basis. The only route from an adverse ruling is the High Court appeal.
Which means the decision to apply should follow a properly worked position rather than precede it. Apply when you believe you are right and want it confirmed, not to find out what the answer might be.
7.2 It is not precedent
A ruling in another taxpayer’s case does not bind the Department in yours. Rulings are frequently cited and can be persuasive, particularly where the facts are close, but they do not settle your position.
A group relying on a favourable ruling obtained by a competitor has an argument, not an answer.
7.3 The facts must hold
The ruling attaches to the transaction as described. If the arrangement changes — different parties, different terms, different conduct — the ruling does not automatically travel with it.
For a multi-year arrangement, that means the facts stated in the application need to remain accurate, and material changes need reassessing.
8. When a ruling can be declared void
Where the Authority finds, on a representation made to it by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or otherwise, that an advance ruling has been obtained by the applicant by fraud or misrepresentation of facts, it may, by order, declare such ruling to be void ab initio, and thereupon all the provisions of the Act shall apply to the applicant as if such advance ruling had never been made.
Note the mechanics: the intervening period is excluded from limitation, so a ruling declared void does not shelter the years it covered.
8.1 What this means for the application
The facts stated have to be complete and accurate, including the ones that are unhelpful.
An application that omits a material fact — an employee in India, a contract clause, a related transaction — produces a ruling on facts that are not yours, and one that can be set aside years later with the protection removed retrospectively.
Disclose fully. The alternative is a ruling that is worse than no ruling.
9. When a foreign company should seek one
| Situation | Why a ruling fits |
|---|---|
| A large proposed transaction whose tax treatment is genuinely uncertain | The answer changes whether or how you proceed |
| A recurring payment structure being put in place for years | One ruling settles many years |
| A treaty position that will be tested | Better resolved before the first remittance than after five |
| A characterisation question with a large rate differential | Royalty versus business profits can be the difference between tax and none |
| Entering a sector or structure where Indian practice is unsettled | Digital, SaaS, platform and data-driven models in particular |
| Board or auditors require certainty for a provision | A ruling supports the accounting position |
9.1 When not to
- The position is clear. Paying for confirmation of something settled is expensive comfort
- The amount does not justify it. Fee, professional cost and six months against the exposure
- A notice has been issued. The route is closed
- The real question is pricing. That is transfer pricing or an APA
- The transaction is imminent. Six months is not a transaction timetable
- You would proceed regardless. Then it is information, not a decision input
- Your position is weak. An adverse ruling binds you and is worse than the uncertainty
That last point deserves emphasis. Where the analysis is genuinely finely balanced against you, an advance ruling converts a defensible filing position into a binding determination. Some uncertainty is worth keeping.
10. The alternatives
An advance ruling is one of several ways to reduce Indian tax uncertainty, and often not the right one.
| Mechanism | Suits | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Advance ruling | A discrete question of law or fact on a specific transaction | Six months; appealable by either side |
| Advance pricing agreement | Pricing of intercompany transactions | Five prospective years with rollback; negotiated; can be bilateral |
| Safe harbour | Standard captive arrangements within prescribed categories | Prescribed margins; bars mutual agreement procedure |
| Lower or nil withholding certificate | A specific remittance where the standard rate over-withholds | Faster and cheaper for a payment-level question |
| Mutual agreement procedure | Double taxation arising under a treaty | Between the two tax administrations; slow |
| A documented professional opinion | Most positions, most of the time | Not binding on the Department, but supports the filing position |
10.1 The one most groups actually need
For a specific remittance where the question is the correct withholding rate, a lower or nil deduction certificate is usually the right tool. It is faster, cheaper, and answers the question the Indian payer actually has.
An advance ruling is for the structural question behind it — whether the income is taxable in India at all — not for the rate on a single payment.
11. Three situations, worked through
Scenario A — The SaaS business testing its treaty position
A software company in a treaty jurisdiction sells subscriptions to Indian customers from overseas, with no Indian presence. Since the equalisation levy withdrawal and the Section 10(50) sunset, its position depends entirely on whether the treaty displaces significant economic presence — and on whether its receipts are business profits or royalty.
Why a ruling fits. The arrangement is recurring, the amounts are material, the characterisation question has a large rate differential, and Indian practice on software payments is contested.
How to frame it. As a characterisation and taxability question, not as a valuation question. Disclose the full contractual terms, because characterisation turns on them.
What to expect. Six months to the ruling, and a real possibility of a Departmental appeal if the ruling is favourable and the amounts are large.
Scenario B — The group that applied too late
A foreign group receives a scrutiny notice questioning whether its Indian activities create a permanent establishment. Its advisor suggests an advance ruling.
The problem. The issue is already pending before an income-tax authority. The bar applies and the application will be rejected.
What was available earlier. Before the notice, the same question could have been put to the Board — and, had the applicant been a resident, filing would have frozen the issue on the other side.
The lesson. The mechanism is a planning tool with an expiry date, and the date is the day a notice issues.
Scenario C — The group that should not have applied
A group with a finely balanced position on whether seconded employees create a service permanent establishment considers a ruling to settle it.
The risk. The facts are unhelpful — secondees on home payroll, reporting to a parent manager, a marked-up recharge. On a full disclosure the ruling may well go against them, and it will bind them.
The better sequence. Restructure the arrangement first — Indian payroll, reporting lines into the Indian entity, a cost-only recharge — and then, if certainty is still wanted, seek a ruling on the restructured facts.
The principle. Fix the position, then confirm it. Do not ask a question you do not want answered.
12. Twelve mistakes
- Working from pre-2021 analysis. The Authority ceased operating on 1 September 2021.
- Assuming a ruling is final. Either side may appeal to the High Court within 60 days.
- Not factoring in the composition change. A panel of revenue officers is a different body from one chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge.
- Applying after a notice. The issue is then pending and the bar applies.
- Framing a pricing question as a legal one. Fair market value questions are barred.
- Omitting an unhelpful fact. A ruling obtained by misrepresentation can be declared void ab initio, with the period excluded from limitation.
- Applying to find out the answer rather than to confirm a worked position. An adverse ruling binds you.
- Relying on another taxpayer’s ruling. It is persuasive, not binding in your case.
- Assuming the ruling covers later years automatically. It attaches to the transaction as described, and facts change.
- Choosing the wrong applicant. It determines who is bound and who can appeal.
- Using a ruling for a single payment’s withholding rate where a lower deduction certificate is faster and cheaper.
- Planning to a six-month timeline. Allow nine to twelve months including preparation and the appeal window.
13. Checklist
Before deciding to apply
- Position fully analysed and documented — the application confirms, it does not explore
- Exposure quantified across all affected years
- Confirmed that no notice has issued and the issue is not pending anywhere
- Question tested against the bars, particularly the valuation bar
- Alternatives compared: lower deduction certificate, APA, safe harbour, professional opinion
- Timeline reconciled with the commercial timetable — nine to twelve months
- Applicant chosen deliberately: the non-resident or the Indian entity
- Downside assessed — would an adverse binding ruling be worse than the current uncertainty?
The application
- Facts stated completely, including the unhelpful ones
- Questions framed as law or fact on taxability or characterisation, not on value
- All contractual documents identified and consistent with the facts stated
- Conduct consistent with the documents — the Department will test this
- Current form, fee slab and procedural rules confirmed before filing
- Withdrawal window noted
After the ruling
- The 60-day appeal window diarised before acting on a favourable ruling
- Ruling filed with the transaction documents and the tax file
- Facts monitored — material change means the ruling may not travel
- Position reflected in withholding, filings and transfer pricing documentation
Facing a structural question before a notice arrives?
That is the only window in which an advance ruling is available, and most groups find the mechanism after it has closed. Tell us the transaction and the question and we will tell you whether a ruling is the right tool, whether a lower deduction certificate or an APA fits better, and whether your position is strong enough to want it confirmed.
14. Frequently asked questions
Q1. What is an advance ruling under Indian income tax law?
It is a determination of a question of law or fact relating to the tax liability arising from a transaction already undertaken or proposed. It gives the applicant a clear position on tax liability in advance, and it is binding on the applicant, the Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) and subordinate authorities — but only for the specific transaction ruled on.
Q2. Does the Authority for Advance Rulings still exist?
No. The Authority ceased operation effective 1 September 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 inserted Section 245-OB empowering the constitution of one or more Boards for Advance Rulings, each consisting of two officers not below the rank of Chief Commissioner. Under the Income-tax Act, 2025 the Board sits at Section 381.
Q3. What is the difference between the AAR and the BAR?
Two things that matter. The Authority was a quasi-judicial body chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge; the Board is two serving revenue officers. And Authority rulings were binding and non-appealable, whereas Board rulings may be appealed to the High Court within 60 days — by the applicant or by the Department.
Q4. Can the tax Department appeal an advance ruling?
Yes. Under Section 389 the applicant or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may appeal to the High Court within 60 days of receiving the ruling, with up to 30 days of delay condonable for sufficient cause. This is the most significant change from the old regime and it means a favourable ruling is not settled until the window passes.
Q5. Which provisions govern advance rulings now?
Sections 380 to 389 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, effective 1 April 2026, replacing Chapter XIX-B (Sections 245N to 245V) of the 1961 Act. Rules 200 to 202 prescribe the application form, fee structure and procedure. Older material citing the 245-series refers to the previous framework.
Q6. Who can apply for an advance ruling?
Five categories: non-residents on their own transactions; residents on transactions with non-residents; specified residents for high-value transactions; residents with pending computation issues; and any person seeking a determination on whether an arrangement is an impermissible avoidance arrangement under GAAR.
Q7. Can our Indian subsidiary apply rather than the foreign parent?
Yes, where the question concerns a transaction with a non-resident. Where the question is whether the Indian company must withhold on a payment to the parent, the Indian company can apply. Where the question is whether the parent is taxable in India at all, the parent applies. Choose deliberately, because it determines who is bound and who can appeal.
Q8. What questions can a foreign company usefully ask?
Whether it has a permanent establishment; whether a payment is royalty, fees for technical services or business profits; whether treaty benefits are available; whether its significant economic presence position is correct; what the withholding obligation is on a proposed remittance; and whether a proposed restructuring is an impermissible avoidance arrangement.
Q9. What questions are barred?
Three. A question already pending before any income-tax authority, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. A question involving determination of the fair market value of any property. And a transaction designed prima facie for avoidance of income tax, subject to the separate GAAR category.
Q10. Can we apply after receiving a scrutiny notice?
No. Once the Department has started looking into the issue it is pending, and the bar applies. This is the most common reason applications are rejected, and it is why an advance ruling is a planning tool rather than a response to a notice. Groups routinely discover the mechanism at the moment it becomes unavailable.
Q11. Does filing an application stop the Department proceeding?
The framework provides that where a resident applicant has made an application, no income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal shall proceed to decide that issue. So filing freezes the issue on the other side, which is a real benefit and a reason not to delay a decision already taken in principle.
Q12. How long does an advance ruling take?
The Board must pronounce its ruling within six months. Plan the whole process at nine to twelve months from the decision to apply, allowing for preparation, admission and the 60-day appeal window before acting on the outcome.
Q13. What does an application cost?
The fee is tiered from ₹10,000 to ₹10 lakh depending on the applicant category and the transaction value. Professional costs for preparing the application and appearing are separate and typically exceed the fee. Confirm the current slabs before filing.
Q14. Is an adverse ruling binding on us?
Yes. This is why an application should follow a worked position rather than precede it. You cannot obtain a ruling, dislike it and proceed on a contrary basis — the only route from an adverse ruling is the High Court appeal. Apply when you believe you are right and want confirmation, not to find out what the answer might be.
Q15. Can we withdraw an application?
Generally yes, within the prescribed period after filing. Where the application was made without full analysis, or where facts change, withdrawal is preferable to an adverse ruling, because an adverse ruling binds you and a withdrawn application does not.
Q16. Does a ruling in another company’s case help us?
It is persuasive but not binding in your case. Rulings are frequently cited, particularly where facts are close, but a group relying on a favourable ruling obtained by a competitor has an argument rather than an answer. The Department is not bound in relation to any other taxpayer.
Q17. Does the ruling cover future years?
It attaches to the transaction as described in the application. Where the arrangement continues on the same facts, the ruling holds; where parties, terms or conduct change materially, it does not automatically travel. For a multi-year arrangement, the facts stated need to remain accurate and material changes need reassessing.
Q18. Can a ruling be cancelled?
Yes. Where the Board finds, on a representation by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or otherwise, that a ruling was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts, it may declare the ruling void ab initio — and the intervening period is excluded from limitation, so the years it covered are not sheltered.
Q19. What happens if we omit a fact from the application?
You obtain a ruling on facts that are not yours, which can be set aside years later with the protection removed retrospectively. Disclose fully, including the unhelpful facts — an incomplete application produces a ruling that is worse than no ruling at all.
Q20. When should a foreign company not seek a ruling?
Where the position is clear; where the amount does not justify the cost and delay; where a notice has issued; where the real question is pricing rather than characterisation; where the transaction is imminent; where you would proceed regardless of the answer; and — importantly — where your position is genuinely weak, because an adverse ruling binds you.
Q21. What are the alternatives to an advance ruling?
An advance pricing agreement for intercompany pricing; safe harbour for standard captive arrangements; a lower or nil withholding certificate for a specific remittance; mutual agreement procedure for treaty double taxation; and a documented professional opinion, which is not binding on the Department but supports the filing position.
Q22. If we only want the right withholding rate, is a ruling the right tool?
Usually not. For a specific remittance where the question is the correct rate, a lower or nil deduction certificate is faster, cheaper and answers the question the Indian payer actually has. An advance ruling is for the structural question behind it — whether the income is taxable in India at all.
Related reading
- Permanent establishment risk in India — the question most often worth ruling on
- Equalisation levy and digital taxation in India — why SEP positions became newly uncertain
- Transfer pricing for Indian subsidiaries — APAs and safe harbour, for pricing questions
- TDS on payments to your foreign parent — lower deduction certificates and remittance mechanics
Talk to us before the notice, not after
Delhi Legal Company works exclusively with foreign companies establishing and operating in India. Advance ruling applications, permanent establishment and treaty analysis, withholding certificates, transfer pricing and APAs — assessed together, because the right tool depends on the question and the window.
How we usually start. Tell us the transaction, the question and whether anything has been raised by the Department. We come back with whether a ruling is available and appropriate, what the alternatives would cost and deliver, and an honest view on whether your position is strong enough that you want it made binding.