Rule 93: MAP restriction after international safe-harbour acceptance
Rule 93 addresses an important consequence of international safe-harbour acceptance: where the specified declared transfer price is accepted under section 167, the assessee cannot invoke the treaty mutual agreement procedure described in the rule.
Official notified Income-tax Rules, 2026Need advice on Rule 93?
This article is for general information. Read the official Rules and applicable Act amendments, including the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2026. If you need professional advice for your situation, contact Bizeneed.
On this page
Bare law
Rule 93 - Mutual agreement procedure not to apply where safe harbour for international transactions is accepted
Where transfer price in relation to an eligible international transaction, declared by an eligible assessee, is accepted by the income-tax authorities under section 167, the assessee shall not be entitled to invoke mutual agreement procedure under an agreement for avoidance of double taxation entered into with a country or specified territory outside India, as referred to under section 159.
Rule breakdown
The trigger is acceptance of the declared price
The rule refers to the transfer price of an eligible international transaction declared by an eligible assessee and accepted by the income-tax authorities under section 167.
Distinguish an option under preparation from the acceptance described by the rule. Keep the transaction scope and acceptance record clear.
The restricted route is treaty MAP
The restriction concerns mutual agreement procedure under the double-taxation-avoidance agreement with a country or specified territory referred to in section 159.
Do not summarise this as a ban on every conceivable remedy or every unrelated transaction; use the exact scope of the rule when assessing a case.
Assess cross-border consequences before opting
Discuss possible taxation in the associated enterprise’s jurisdiction and the availability of treaty dispute resolution before deciding on safe harbour. Domestic administrative certainty can have consequences for the treaty route identified here.
The rule itself does not promise an automatic foreign corresponding adjustment or elimination of double taxation.
Retain an informed decision record
Document the transaction, countries, pricing position, expected safe-harbour treatment and the MAP restriction considered. Review the relevant treaty and facts with a transfer-pricing adviser.
Keep the option and acceptance evidence with the transfer-pricing file so future teams do not assume MAP remains available without checking this provision.
Key takeaways
Acceptance matters
The rule is framed around a price accepted under section 167.
Treaty MAP restricted
Consider the specified dispute-resolution consequence before opting.
No automatic foreign relief
Do not infer a corresponding adjustment promise from this rule.
Practical checklist
- Review treaty and cross-border implications before opting.
- Record the precise accepted transaction and price.
- Preserve the decision and acceptance evidence.
Avoid
- Do not assume foreign corresponding relief is automatic.
- Do not expand the text into a statement about every legal remedy.
FAQs
Does the rule concern merely preparing a safe-harbour form?
Its wording concerns the specified declared price being accepted by the authorities under section 167.
Does Rule 93 guarantee relief from tax in the other country?
No. It sets a restriction on invoking MAP in the stated circumstances and does not promise foreign corresponding relief.
Should the MAP consequence be reviewed before exercising the option?
Yes. It is a material consequence to consider when assessing the cross-border facts and available procedures.
Glossary
- MAP
- Mutual agreement procedure under the relevant double-taxation-avoidance agreement.