Yes, if it has an international related-party transaction. The accountant's transfer-pricing report is mandatory on any such transaction regardless of size, which surprises groups whose Indian company is small and whose only dealing with the parent is a single management charge or a cost recharge. There is no threshold to fall under. Groups get caught because they judge the obligation by the amount involved rather than by whether a related-party transaction exists at all. Establish whether there is one, and if there is, the report is part of the annual set from the first year.
Foreign company with an Indian subsidiary — what does India require?
- 15+Years of the founder's cross-border experience
- 18,000+Clients served across our offices in India, the USA, Canada and the UAE
- 5.0Google rating
- 4Global offices — India, USA, Canada & UAE
The annual set includes the corporate return, the accountant's transfer-pricing report, the tax audit report where thresholds are met, and exchange-control reporting on the foreign investment. India collects at source before considering any exemption, so most Indian files are a reconciliation and a recovery rather than a payment.
What India requires
The annual set includes the corporate return, the accountant's transfer-pricing report, the tax audit report where thresholds are met, and exchange-control reporting on the foreign investment. They are read together and must agree.

The exception that catches people
An Indian subsidiary of a foreign group files more than a corporate return: a transfer-pricing report is mandatory on any international related-party transaction regardless of size.
Your next step
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on Foreign company with an Indian subsidiary — filings. Send us the facts and we will tell you what has to be filed and what it costs.
Reviewed against current guidance for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. General information, not advice for your circumstances — call our 24-hour helpline to discuss your own position.
Cross-border tax case studies
The transfer pricing report a group thought it was too small to need
A foreign parent's Indian subsidiary had filed its corporate return for several years and nothing else, on the view that its single recharge from the parent was too small to matter. The report is mandatory on any international related-party transaction regardless of size. We established the transactions for each open year, prepared the accountant's report, and reconciled the figures back to the returns already filed. The engagement produced the missing reports, amended returns where the reconciliation required it, and a note to the parent's finance team on what triggers the obligation.
Read how this one runsReconciling a return and a report that disagreed
An Indian subsidiary's corporate return and its transfer-pricing report carried different related-party figures, because an intercompany balance had been adjusted after the return was prepared and the report was written from the earlier file. The documents are read together, so the difference was visible. We traced each figure to its source, established which was correct, and corrected the filings so the set agreed. The engagement produced a consistent annual set and a revised close sequence in which the report is drafted from the same final numbers as the return.
Read how this one runsReconstructing exchange control reporting on historic funding
A group had capitalised its Indian subsidiary at incorporation and reported nothing, because nobody treated a single injection as a reporting event. Years later a buyer's diligence asked for the filings. We reconstructed the funding from bank statements and board records, established what should have been reported and when, and made the position good. The engagement produced the reporting, a dated file explaining the delay, and a diligence answer the group could give without qualification. The reconstruction was possible only because the bank records had been kept.
Read how this one runsA first year set built before the first filing was due
A foreign group had just incorporated an Indian subsidiary whose only dealing with the parent would be a management charge. Rather than wait for a deadline, we set out the annual set the company would owe, tested which components applied in the first year, and put the contemporaneous documentation in place as the charge was agreed. The engagement produced a complete first-year set that agreed across all its parts, and a calendar the local accountant now works to, with the transfer-pricing documentation written while the facts were current.
Read how this one runsBringing an auditor and a tax adviser onto the same figures
An Indian subsidiary's tax audit report and its corporate return had been prepared by different firms working from different versions of the accounts. Because the documents are read together, the inconsistencies were the group's problem rather than either firm's. We built a single reconciliation between the accounts, the return, the tax audit report and the transfer-pricing report, and identified each difference and its cause. The engagement produced an agreed set of final figures and a close timetable that fixes the order in which the four documents are produced.
Read how this one runsA multi year filing review ahead of group diligence
Before a transaction, a foreign parent needed to know whether its Indian subsidiary's filings for the open years hung together. We read each year as a set rather than as separate submissions, comparing related-party figures across the return, the accountant's report and the accounts, and checking the exchange-control reporting on the original investment. The engagement produced a year-by-year schedule of what had been filed, where the documents disagreed, and what corrective filings each year needed, which the parent handed to the buyer's advisers.
Read how this one runsA Second Opinion on a Return Already Filed
A cross-border return prepared on one side only is usually right in isolation and wrong in combination. The review checks residence, source and relief in that order, and says plainly whether an amendment is worth making.
Read how this one runsTax Deducted When Buying From an NRI
Withholding on a sale by a non-resident is applied to the sale value rather than to the gain, so it routinely exceeds the tax due. A lower-deduction certificate obtained before completion avoids locking the difference up.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Core International & Cross-Border Tax Services
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Industries & Client Types We Serve Worldwide
Cross-border tax for sellers shipping worldwide: marketplace withholding, foreign registrations and inventory nexus handled before they become audits.
Marketplaces withhold, remit and report in their own right, so the tax position of a single sale is decided by where the stock sat, where the buyer was and which platform collected — not by where the company is registered. We reconcile the platform's own filings against the returns before either is submitted.
- Foreign VAT / GST / sales tax registrations
- Marketplace withholding reviews
- Inventory nexus & PE analysis
- Multi-currency books reconciled
- Cross-border revenue sourcing & withholding
- IP structuring with real substance
- Equity for cross-border teams
- U.S. expansion: entity & PE setup
- Reg 105 / 102 waivers
- Permanent establishment risk
- Partner mobility planning
- Cross-border withholding recovery
- Section 216 rental returns
- FIRPTA withholding recovery
- Section 116 clearance
- Treaty credit optimization
- Transfer pricing documentation (s.247)
- Customs value vs transfer price
- Foreign affiliate reporting (T1134)
- Country-by-country reporting
- Reg 105 & U.S. CWA agreements
- Multi-state & country calendars
- Touring income allocation
- Royalty & image-rights withholding
- Residency analysis before moving
- Employer payroll exposure
- Totalization & social security
- Foreign tax credits
- Treaty access & PPT reviews
- FAPI & surplus computations
- Withholding-efficient routing
- Governance & substance
What people ask us about Foreign company with an Indian subsidiary — filings
Four things sit together: the corporate return, the accountant's transfer-pricing report where there is an international related-party transaction, the tax audit report where the thresholds for it are met, and exchange-control reporting on the foreign investment in the company. They are not independent submissions. They are read together, and they have to agree with one another and with the statutory accounts. A group that treats them as four separate jobs given to three different firms ends up with four documents describing the same year slightly differently, which is the condition in which enquiries start.
It is an international related-party transaction, so it brings the transfer-pricing report with it. One charge is enough. What then matters is that the same figure appears identically in the corporate return, in the report, and in the accounts, and that the report actually addresses how the charge was arrived at rather than asserting that it is reasonable. A single recurring management fee is straightforward to document contemporaneously and troublesome to reconstruct years later, when the person who agreed it has left the group.
Assume the difference will be noticed, because the documents are read together. A related-party figure that is one amount in the return and another in the report invites a question about both, and the answer usually involves explaining an internal process rather than a tax position. Reconcile them before filing, not after. The common cause is timing. The accounts close, the return is prepared, an intercompany balance is adjusted afterwards, and the report is written from the earlier file. Fix the sequence so the report is prepared from the same final numbers as the return.
The reporting attaches to the foreign investment in the Indian company, so a single injection of capital is still a reportable event. Groups that fund once at incorporation and never again are the ones most likely to have missed it, because there is no recurring trigger to remind them. It is also the item least likely to be picked up by whoever prepares the tax filings, since it is not a tax return. Check it deliberately as part of the annual set, and reconstruct any historic funding from bank records while those records still exist.
Where the thresholds that require one are met, yes, and it then forms part of the annual set read alongside the corporate return and the transfer-pricing report. Test the position each year rather than assuming last year's answer holds, because a company that grows through a threshold acquires the obligation without anything else about it changing. And where the report is required, make sure it is prepared from the same final figures as the return. A tax audit report and a return that disagree are worse than either on its own.
Most treaties give building sites and installation projects their own rule, turning on how long the work continues rather than on whether an office exists. Time is generally counted per site, and related contracts split between group companies are commonly aggregated to stop the threshold being avoided by paperwork. The period differs between treaties, so it is read from the one that applies. See permanent establishment risk.
A branch is the same legal entity operating in another country, so its profits and losses sit with the parent and it is taxed there as a permanent establishment. A subsidiary is a separate company, taxed in its own right, with dividends and withholding on the way home. Losses, repatriation cost and liability usually decide it, and the answer differs by country pair. See branch vs subsidiary.



