Most Appropriate Transfer Pricing Method Depends on Reliable Transaction Evidence

Similar Transactions, Different Methods: Choosing the Most Appropriate Transfer Pricing Method in India

1. Introduction

Transfer pricing disputes often appear to be about margins or comparables. The disagreement, however, may begin much earlier: which method should be used to determine the arm’s length price?

There is no automatic rule that a distributor must use the Resale Price Method (RPM), a manufacturer the Cost Plus Method (CPM),or a service provider the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The business description provides a starting point, but it does not by itself determine the method.

The analysis should begin with more fundamental questions. What functions are actually performed? Which assets are employed and which risks are assumed? What do the agreements say, and how are the parties actually conducting themselves? Is reliable information available to apply the method?

Indian law provides five specified methods—Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP)RPM, CPM, Profit Split Method (PSM) and TNMM—and the Other Method prescribed under Rule 10AB. Each method approaches the arm’s length question through a different form of evidence. CUP focuses most directly on price; RPM and CPM examine gross-margin evidence; TNMM examines net profitability; PSM examines combined profit and relative contributions; and the Other Method permits other relevant pricing evidence where the five specified methods do not provide a sufficiently reliable answer.

The central issue is therefore not which method is normally associated with a particular business. It is which method provides the most reliable measure of the arm’s length price for the particular transaction on the evidence available.

2. Starting Point: Transaction, Functional Analysis and Evidence

Section 92Cprovides for determination of the arm’s length price by the most appropriate method. Rule 10C requires consideration of the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the transaction; the functions performed, taking into account assets employed and risks assumed; the availability and reliability of data; the degree of comparability; and the reliability of adjustments and assumptions.

A practical sequence is:

1. Identify the transaction.

2. Understand the functions, assets and risks.

3. Consider the economic circumstances and contractual terms.

4. Identify the available evidence.

5. Consider the methods capable of being applied.

6. Examine comparability and possible adjustments.

7. Select the most appropriate method.

8. Determine the arm’s length price.

The sequence is important. Method selection should not begin with a database and then work backwards to justify the method.

The functional analysis must also look beyond contractual labels. A contract may allocate a risk to one party, but the analysis should consider whether that party actually performs the relevant risk-control functions and assumes the economic consequences of that risk. Similarly, the legal form of an arrangement should be considered alongside the parties’ actual conduct.

Data availability is not the same as data reliability

A method does not become the most appropriate merely because information for that method is easier to obtain. Financial databases may provide extensive company-level information for TNMM, while transaction-level prices required for CUP may be difficult to locate. That difference in availability is relevant, but it does not settle the methodological question.

If reliable internal CUP evidence exists and differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions can be adjusted with reasonable accuracy, the availability of extensive TNMM comparables does not by itself determine the appropriate method.

The reverse can also occur. A transaction may appear suitable for CUP, but differences in product specifications, market conditions, contractual terms or credit arrangements may make reliable adjustments difficult. In that situation, a method based on broader financial evidence may provide a more dependable result.

Aggregation requires the same discipline. Closely linked or interrelated transactions may be tested together where their economic relationship justifies doing so. Aggregation should not, however, become a matter of convenience merely because separate transaction-level analysis is difficult.

3. CUP, RPM and CPM: Price, Gross Margin and Cost Evidence

CUP: when price provides the most direct evidence

CUP tries to answer the transfer pricing question head-on: what price did independent parties actually use for something sufficiently comparable to the controlled transaction?

Suppose an Indian company purchases an industrial component from its associated enterprise at ₹950 per unit, while an uncontrolled transaction involving the same or a sufficiently comparable component shows a price of ₹930. The ₹20 difference cannot simply be treated as the transfer pricing adjustment.

The comparison must account for differences that could affect price. Quantity, product specifications, market level, delivery terms, credit period, customer profile, warranty obligations, timing and other contractual conditions may materially affect the result.

Internal CUP evidence can be valuable, but an internal transaction is not automatically conclusive. An unrelated sale involving a different quantity, different market or different contractual support may not provide a sufficiently comparable benchmark.

A further distinction is important. A published quotation that has not resulted in an actual uncontrolled transaction does not, by itself, constitute a CUP. It may nevertheless provide relevant evidence under the Other Method, depending on its reliability and the circumstances in which the quotation was generated.

Indian appellate decisions involving commodities and specialised products illustrate that the existence of an independent price is only the starting point. Commercial comparability and the possibility of reasonably accurate adjustments remain critical.

CUP is particularly reliable where the uncontrolled transaction is sufficiently comparable and material differences can be addressed through reasonably accurate adjustments.

RPM: the distributor is not automatically an RPM case

RPM starts with the price at which the property is resold to an independent enterprise and works backwards to determine the arm’s length purchase price. The normal gross profit margin and expenses incurred in connection with the purchase are deducted, with adjustments for material functional and accounting differences.

RPM can work well where finished goods are purchased and resold without substantial transformation. But the label “distributor” is not enough.

Consider two Indian distributors. The first imports finished products, stores them and resells them with limited additional activity. The second performs substantial additional functions, such as product configuration, technical support, warranty functions and after-sales activities. Treating both entities identically merely because both are called distributors may obscure an important functional difference.

Gross-margin comparability also requires care. A headline gross margin may conceal differences in accounting classification, freight, warehousing, inventory functions or other operating arrangements. The comparables must therefore be examined beyond the percentage appearing in the financial statements.

Marketing expenditure presents another recurring issue. Significant advertising or promotional expenditure by a distributor does not, by itself, establish that the distributor has created or owns a marketing intangible. The analysis should consider who performs and controls the marketing activity, who bears the expenditure, what contractual rights exist and whether the activity materially affects the functions performed by the distributor.

The practical lesson is that RPM is strongest where the reseller functions and gross-margin evidence are genuinely comparable.

CPM: manufacturing does not automatically mean Cost Plus

CPM begins with the costs incurred by the supplier and applies an appropriate comparable gross mark-up for performing comparable functions.

It can be useful in contract manufacturing, job work and routine manufacturing arrangements, provided both the relevant cost base and comparable mark-up can be established with sufficient reliability.

The cost base deserves as much attention as the mark-up. Manufacturers may differ in capacity utilisation, procurement responsibilities, depreciation, product complexity, quality-control functions and treatment of abnormal expenditure. Accounting classifications can also affect the apparent cost structure.

Common overheads allocated solely by reference to turnover, for example, may produce a convenient figure without necessarily reflecting the resources associated with the relevant manufacturing activity.

A detailed cost sheet is therefore not necessarily a reliable cost base.

Even a carefully prepared cost base does not settle the CPM question. The mark-up must also be supported by comparable uncontrolled evidence and appropriate adjustments for differences in functions, risks and accounting treatment.

4. TNMM and PSM: Net Margins and Contribution Analysis

TNMM: practical does not mean automatic

TNMM examines the net profitability of the tested party rather than directly comparing the controlled transaction at the price or gross-margin level.

Its practical appeal is understandable. Net-margin information is generally easier to obtain than detailed transaction-level pricing information. But popularity is not the statutory test.

The first question is the choice of tested party. The tested party should ordinarily be the party for which the method can be applied most reliably and for which dependable comparable information is available. A less complex entity will often satisfy that requirement, but “least complex entity” is not an independent statutory rule.

The next question is the profit level indicator. Operating profit to sales may suit a routine distributor; operating profit to costs may be relevant for certain service arrangements; and operating profit relative to assets may be useful where asset intensity is an important driver of profitability. The PLI should follow the economics of the tested activity, rather than being selected because it produces a convenient result.

Segmentation can also matter. Entity-level margins may conceal substantial differences where an enterprise combines materially different activities. If reliable segmental information exists, it may provide a better basis for the analysis.

The relevant issue in applying TNMM is therefore not simply whether net-margin information exists, but whether the tested party, comparables and PLI adequately reflect the functions and risks of the transaction.

PSM: contribution must be demonstrated

PSM adopts a different approach. It looks at the combined profit from relevant controlled activities and asks how that profit should be allocated in light of the parties’ respective contributions.

It can become relevant where both parties make significant and interrelated contributions, particularly where valuable and unique intangibles are contributed by both parties or where the operations are highly integrated.

A contribution analysis may allocate combined profit directly by reference to economically relevant contribution factors. Under a residual approach, market returns for routine contributions may first be allocated, with the remaining residual profit then allocated according to the parties’ significant contributions.

The percentage used in a PSM calculation cannot simply be assumed. Relevant evidence may include research and development activity, development or control of valuable intangibles, specialised personnel, strategic decision-making, market development, assets employed and functions relating to risk control.

The existence of group intellectual property does not, by itself, establish that PSM is appropriate. Equally, a percentage such as 60:40 or 55:45 has no independent significance unless the allocation can be supported by the underlying economic contributions.

5. Other Method: Alternative Evidence Under Rule 10AB

Rule 10AB is particularly useful where the five specified methods do not provide a sufficiently reliable basis for determining the arm’s length price.

It permits consideration of the price charged or paid, or that would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction under similar circumstances, having regard to the relevant facts.

Depending on the transaction, useful evidence may include:

• independent quotations;
• tender documents and bids;
• negotiation records;
• rate cards;
• comparable commercial arrangements; and
• appropriate valuation evidence.

The fact that evidence comes from an independent third party does not make it automatically determinative. A third-party quotation is not automatically a CUP. A bid may arise from a genuine tender process but still require examination of its terms, commercial context and relevance to the controlled transaction. A valuation report is evidence to be evaluated, not automatically the arm’s length price.

The documentation should explain why the five specified methods were not considered sufficiently reliable in the circumstances and why the alternative evidence provides a better indication of the arm’s length price.

The Other Method is therefore an evidence-based method. It does not dispense with the need to establish an arm’s length basis for the price.

6. Why Similar Transactions Can Produce Different Methodological Results

The method is ultimately driven by the evidence available for the particular transaction.

This is why similar-looking transactions can lead to different methodological conclusions. One distributor may have dependable gross-margin comparables, while another may have reliable net-margin evidence but no sufficiently comparable gross-margin data. One manufacturer may have reliable cost records and comparable mark-ups, while another may face substantial difficulties in establishing either.

The distinction is between technical applicability and reliable application.

A method may appear suitable in theory but become less persuasive once the actual evidence, contractual terms, accounting treatment or functional differences are examined.

7. What Should the Transfer Pricing File Actually Demonstrate?

A transfer pricing report should allow a reviewer to move from the facts to the conclusion without having to fill in missing steps.

For CUP, the documentation should demonstrate why the uncontrolled transaction is comparable and how material differences have been addressed.

For RPM, it should explain the functions performed by the reseller, the basis for selecting gross-margin comparables and the treatment of expenses and accounting classifications.

For CPM, the relevant cost base should be clearly identified. Allocation keys for common expenditure should have a defensible basis and should not materially distort the relevant cost base.

For TNMM, the choice of tested party and PLI should be explained. Comparable-company exclusions should not rest solely on a statement that a company is “functionally different”. Specific differences—such as inventory ownership, credit risk, research and development functions or asset intensity—make the analysis more transparent.

For PSM, the contribution factors should be identifiable and the percentage allocation should be capable of being traced back to those factors.

For the Other Method, attaching a valuation report or quotation is not enough. The file should explain why the evidence is relevant to the controlled transaction and why it provides a dependable indication of the arm’s length price.

A useful practical test is simple:

Can another person reproduce the method and calculation from the records?

If the answer is no, the weakness may lie not in the arithmetic but in the evidentiary chain supporting the method.

8. Illustration: Why Method Selection Matters

Consider an Indian distributor, Indian Distributor Ltd. (IDL), purchasing 1,000 high-speed packaging machines used in pharmaceutical production lines from its foreign associated enterprise, Foreign Manufacturer Ltd. (FML).

Assume:

• purchase price paid by IDL: ₹100 crore;
• resale revenue to independent customers: ₹140 crore;
• IDL operating expenses: ₹18 crore; and
• FML relevant manufacturing costs: ₹86 crore.

Assume, purely to illustrate the mechanics, that the following benchmark evidence is available:

For illustration, the calculations can be presented briefly.

Under CUP, the assumed adjusted uncontrolled price is ₹94 crore.

Under RPM, a 20% gross margin on ₹140 crore is ₹28 crore. Deducting that margin and the assumed ₹4 crore of purchase-related expenses gives ₹108 crore.

Under CPM, a 12% mark-up on ₹86 crore produces ₹10.32 crore, giving an illustrative implied price of ₹96.32 crore.

Under TNMM, an 8% operating margin on ₹140 crore produces ₹11.20 crore of operating profit. After deducting ₹18 crore of operating expenses, the implied purchase price is ₹110.80 crore.

Under PSM, the combined profit is ₹140 crore less ₹86 crore manufacturing costs and ₹18 crore operating expenses, or ₹36 crore. If IDL is hypothetically allocated 35%, its share is ₹12.60 crore. The illustrative implied purchase price is therefore ₹109.40 crore.

Under the Other Method, the assumed relevant independent third-party bid produces an implied price of ₹101 crore.

The six hypothetical calculations produce outputs ranging from ₹94 crore to ₹110.80 crore—a difference of ₹16.80 crore. These are not six alternative arm’s length prices for the same transaction. They are outputs generated by different hypothetical evidentiary assumptions.

Some methods may, in fact, be inappropriate unless additional facts are established. CUP would require the assumed uncontrolled price to be sufficiently comparable after adjustments. RPM would depend on reliable gross-margin comparables and appropriate treatment of purchase-related expenses. CPM would require dependable evidence concerning both the supplier’s cost base and comparable manufacturing mark-up. TNMM would require a reliable tested party, PLI and comparable set. PSM would require evidence that both parties make significant and interrelated contributions capable of supporting the allocation. The independent bid used under the Other Method would require examination of its commercial relevance and reliability.

If IDL is a routine reseller with limited value addition and reliable gross-margin comparables are available, RPM would deserve close consideration. If gross-margin comparability is weak but dependable net-margin evidence exists, TNMM may provide a more workable basis. The point is not which method produces the lower or higher transfer price. The point is whether the selected method best reflects the evidence surrounding the actual transaction.

Conclusion

The choice of transfer pricing method cannot be reduced to the label attached to the business.

A distributor may be appropriately tested under RPM where reliable gross-margin evidence exists, while TNMM may be more reliable where gross-margin comparisons cannot be made satisfactorily. A manufacturer may support CPM where its cost base and mark-up comparables are reliable, while another manufacturing arrangement may require a different analysis. PSM requires evidence of significant and interrelated contributions, and the Other Method can be useful where independent pricing evidence is available but the five specified methods do not provide a sufficiently reliable answer.

Method selection is therefore not merely a classification exercise. It is an evidence exercise.

A sound transfer pricing analysis is one in which the transaction, functional analysis, evidence and computation tell the same economic story.

*****

Author: CA Rahul V Shah ([email protected])