India: Valuation issues, fixed assets and cost sharing arrangement

India: Valuation issues, fixed assets

The Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer is required to determine the arm’s length price by applying any one of the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the tribunal concluded that: (1) when the taxpayer has submitted a report from an “approved valuer” indicating the fair market value of purchased machinery; (2) before rejecting this valuation report, the Transfer Pricing Officer must refer the issue of the machinery valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (as per the procedure set forth in the statute). Moreover, the tribunal found that the arm’s length price of a cost sharing arrangement cannot be “nil” absent any valid findings by the Transfer Pricing Officer.

Related content

The case is: Koch Chemical Technology Group (India) Ltd. v. ACIT


The taxpayer is a subsidiary of a company in Mauritius, whose ultimate parent company is a U.S. corporation. The taxpayer is engaged in manufacturing mass transit equipment, and related application process, design, and engineering services. 

During assessment proceedings for 2006-07, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the value assigned by the taxpayer to fixed asset purchases (including second-hand machinery), based on appraisals from an “approved valuer” in the United States. The Transfer Pricing Officer found that the values were not at arm’s length, and made a 50% adjustment to the second-hand machinery valuation. The Transfer Pricing Officer also rejected the taxpayer’s cost sharing arrangement valuation, and instead assigned a valuation of “nil.” The Dispute Resolution Panel upheld the assessments.

The tribunal, however, held that the Transfer Pricing Officer can only make an adjustment based on substantive evidence; is not allowed to reject the valuation assigned by an approved valuer; but must instead refer the valuation issue to the Departmental Valuation Officer. 


Read an October 2015 report [PDF 382 KB] prepared by the KPMG member firm in India: The Transfer Pricing Officer, not an expert on valuation, is bound to refer the valuation report to Departmental Valuation Officer as per the procedure laid down in the statute

The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

Connect with us


Request for proposal



KPMG's new digital platform

KPMG's new digital platform