November 5, 2026
Why two transfer pricing study cost quotes rarely match
Quotes for the same transfer pricing study rarely describe the same work, and that explains most of the gap between them. The fee follows the scope: the entities inside it, the transaction categories tested, the depth of the functional analysis, whether the comparables set is built or carried forward, and the number of jurisdictions the file has to satisfy.
Turnover says little about transfer pricing study cost. A group testing one services transaction across two entities can pay less than a smaller group whose four categories run across three countries, above all in the year the file is first built.
Each number is a scope document before it is a price. This note sets out what carries the scope, which parts of the work recur every year and which are one-off, and which items sit outside the study altogether. The three questions near the end decide more of the difference than the headline figures do. If both quotes are already on your desk, send them to us, and we will set each against a single scope.
The fee is set by scope, not by the size of the group: entities, transaction categories, the depth of the functional analysis and the freshness of the comparables move it further than revenue does.
Section 92D read with Rule 10D requires the file; section 92E requires the accountant's report. A quote that carries one and not the other leaves the section 271BA penalty with the taxpayer.
A first-year build and an annual refresh are different engagements, and a renewal quote that assumes a roll-forward is cheaper because it assumes something exists.
The report, the filing and audit support sit outside the study. Until all three are placed inside one of the two quotes, the numbers are not comparable.
The scope facts that carry the fee
For FY 2025-26 the content of the file is set by section 92D read with Rule 10D. For tax year 2026-27, the 2025 Act's first year, that duty runs through section 171(1) and Rule 84. Our note on what Rule 10D requires works through the items one by one, and a file answers the rule in force for the year it covers. How much original analysis each item needs in your own facts varies from one taxpayer to the next.
The gap between the list and the work separates two quotes. The rule asks the same categories of every taxpayer and says nothing about how much thinking each category needs. Firms applying it can reach figures far apart without either misreading it.
The items that move a quote split into two groups: those the statute puts there, and those the firm decides.
Scope fact | What it changes in the work | Set by |
|---|---|---|
Entities in scope | Each entity brings its own functions, assets and risks write-up, its own financials and its own set of transactions | Statutory in both years: section 92D with Rule 10D, then section 171(1) and Rule 84; your structure sets the count |
Tested transactions | A management fee, a purchase of goods, a royalty and a loan are four method decisions, and Part E of Form 48 asks for the method and comparables transaction by transaction | Statutory in both years, transaction by transaction |
Tested party and FAR depth | A tested party chosen late reopens the analysis beneath it; depth follows how much of the decision turns on functions, assets and risks | The firm's judgment |
Jurisdictions | A second country adds a second rule set, a second comparable set and a second reviewer | Your counterparties set the count; the firm prices the work |
Comparables, fresh or carried forward | A fresh search means screening, a rejection log and a defensible set; a roll-forward updates margins on a set that already exists | The firm's judgment, bounded by how far the facts changed |
Master File and country-by-country reporting | Group-level deliverables, scoped and priced apart from the local file | Statutory where the thresholds are crossed, in both years |
One category tested across two entities is a lighter engagement than four categories tested across three countries. A2 Consultants, writing on the same question, puts preparation cost on the number and complexity of related-party transaction categories. Revenue enters mainly through the thresholds that decide whether the provisions apply at all.
Depth is the row buyers underestimate. The functional analysis defends the tested party, and it is the part the Transfer Pricing Officer reads first. A quote that prices two pages of functions analysis and a quote that prices interviews across three departments carry the same heading in the proposal and a different amount of work behind it.
Jurisdictions work the same way. A second country rarely doubles the comparable work, because the local rules decide which party may be tested and which comparable set will be accepted. Group functions in one country and counterparties in another make the file longer in both places.
A quote that cannot name the entities it has priced, or the number of transaction categories inside the fee, has not yet told you what it costs.
Which parts recur every year, and which are one-off
The first year of a file is not the same engagement as the year after it. Steadfast Consultants, writing on engagement cost drivers, puts the build in year one: the functional analysis, the search strategy, the screening criteria and the rejection matrix are made once and then maintained, as their note on what drives a transfer pricing engagement describes.
A refresh is a different piece of work. The analysis is re-tested against new financials and new comparable data, the margin range is rerun, and the reasoning is checked against whatever changed in the business during the year. Most groups settle into that rhythm after the first file and price it accordingly.
The two quotes in front of you may not be for the same year. FY 2025-26 is the last season certified under the 1961 Act, and the first year under the 2025 Act is being built alongside it, which the note on the last Form 3CEB season sets out. A firm quoting the closing year alone and a firm quoting both are answering two different questions.
A roll-forward price assumes last year's file exists and can be relied on. Where the firm quoting did not write that file, the assumption is being made about another firm's work, and the cost of the first-year build returns inside a renewal quote.
Changes to the business reset the build: a new transaction category, a new counterparty jurisdiction, an acquisition, or a different tested party. Each one leaves part of last year's analysis obsolete, and a quote given before the change was known will be re-scoped once it is.
A renewal should also itemise what it refreshes: the comparable set and the date it was last screened, the intercompany agreements still in force, and any adjustment carried from the prior year. Those items are cheap to state in a quote and expensive to discover afterwards.
The analysis also has to exist as the transactions happen, not in the week the report falls due. A group that keeps the file current carries a lighter refresh into the next year, and one that rebuilds from memory every year pays for the build twice.
The work that is not the study: report, filing and audit support
The commonest reason two quotes will not line up is that one carries work the other leaves out. The accountant's report, the filing that follows it, and the support after an examination travel with the study without being part of it.
Section 92E requires a report from an accountant, as the bare text of section 92E sets out. Failure to furnish it lets the Assessing Officer direct a penalty of one hundred thousand rupees under section 271BA, which the bare text of section 271BA records, and a fee that covers the study and stops there leaves that exposure where it was.
For the 2026-27 tax year the report changes form: Form 48 under section 172 of the 2025 Act replaces Form 3CEB under section 92E of the 1961 Act, as this note on Form 48 sets out. Part E fixes the method and the comparables analysis transaction by transaction, and Part F certifies compliance with the documentation obligations. One form now reports on two obligations.
The certificate and the file are separate things. The FY 2025-26 documentation checklist makes the point plainly: the obligation to maintain documentation arises under section 92D read with Rule 10D, and the certification is not the documentation exercise. The file the report certifies has to be prepared as the transactions happen, rather than assembled after the accountant has signed.
The filing is the second item and it has its own cost. The form is verified and signed by the accountant, and every figure in it has to be traceable to the file. Where the two are produced by different teams, or in different years, the reconciliation is work someone pays for.
When the file is written after the report, the sequence reverses itself. The accountant certifies figures that the file is then built to support, and the reconciliation between the two becomes part of the fee. A quote that prices the report alone leaves that reconciliation unpriced.
Audit support is the third and the least visible. An assessment, a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, and the dispute that can follow are usually priced by time or by a retainer, so they rarely appear in a compliance quote unless it says so. A pair of quotes can differ by the whole of this item with neither firm mentioning it.
The three questions to put to each firm before comparing the number
The two numbers measure different things until the two scopes have been made to match. Send these questions to each firm, and ask for the answers by email so they can be held beside each other.
Which entities and which transaction categories does this fee cover? Ask them to name the entities and the categories, and to say which of those are tested in the document itself.
What is built this year, and what is carried forward? Where last year's file is being relied on, ask who wrote it, because a roll-forward over another firm's file is a rebuild priced as a refresh.
Does the fee include the accountant's report, the filing and audit support? For FY 2025-26 that means the section 92E report; for later years, the section 172 report in Form 48. Where those sit outside, ask for them to be quoted separately.
Take a group with three entities and two transaction categories, quoted by two firms for the same year. The first quote covers the file under section 92D and Rule 10D and nothing else; the second covers the file, the accountant's report and the filing. The second is larger, and it is also the only one of the two that closes the section 271BA exposure. Read as numbers alone, the first looks cheaper and buys less.
Suppose instead that both quotes include the report, and they still differ. The answer is usually in the first question: one firm has priced a single tested party for the services transaction and treated the goods purchase as outside scope, which the file cannot do if that purchase is a related-party transaction in the first place.
Set the three answers in one table, one column per firm, before the numbers are discussed at all. The row where the two answers part is the row the fee difference sits in, and it is usually the second or the third. That row is also the one to settle in writing before either engagement letter is signed.
Firms that answer the same three questions give you two scopes that can be read against each other, and a difference you can explain. Comparing the headline figures alone tells you which firm was working to the lighter scope, and nothing more.
Where the answers leave the quotes further apart than the numbers, we take the scope apart with the client before either is signed. Transfer pricing strategy support describes how that work runs.
Questions the two quotes usually raise
Is a TP study report mandatory? Where the transfer pricing provisions apply, yes. Section 92E requires a report from an accountant, and section 92D read with Rule 10D requires the file behind it. Failing to furnish the report exposes the taxpayer to a penalty of one hundred thousand rupees under section 271BA.
What is a transfer pricing study? It is the record of how each related-party transaction was priced: the functions, assets and risks of the entities compared, the method chosen, the comparables kept and rejected, and the resulting arm's length range. In India that study is the file the accountant's report certifies.
How to prepare a transfer pricing study report? Start from the transaction set and the tested party, fix the method per transaction, build or refresh the comparables, and record each rejection. The accountant's report follows, and it can only certify what the file already shows. What a transfer pricing study report must contain sets out the list.
This note rests on section 92D read with Rule 10D, section 171(1) and Rule 84, sections 92E and 172, section 271BA and the Form 48 reporting requirements, as read to 5 November 2026. It gives no fee figure, because none of the sources read for it carries both a scope and a date.
If the two quotes are still apart on scope after those questions, contact us, and we will say which of them covers the file, the report and the filing.
Quotes for the same transfer pricing study rarely describe the same work, and that explains most of the gap between them. The fee follows the scope: the entities inside it, the transaction categories tested, the depth of the functional analysis, whether the comparables set is built or carried forward, and the number of jurisdictions the file has to satisfy.
Turnover says little about transfer pricing study cost. A group testing one services transaction across two entities can pay less than a smaller group whose four categories run across three countries, above all in the year the file is first built.
Each number is a scope document before it is a price. This note sets out what carries the scope, which parts of the work recur every year and which are one-off, and which items sit outside the study altogether. The three questions near the end decide more of the difference than the headline figures do. If both quotes are already on your desk, send them to us, and we will set each against a single scope.
The fee is set by scope, not by the size of the group: entities, transaction categories, the depth of the functional analysis and the freshness of the comparables move it further than revenue does.
Section 92D read with Rule 10D requires the file; section 92E requires the accountant's report. A quote that carries one and not the other leaves the section 271BA penalty with the taxpayer.
A first-year build and an annual refresh are different engagements, and a renewal quote that assumes a roll-forward is cheaper because it assumes something exists.
The report, the filing and audit support sit outside the study. Until all three are placed inside one of the two quotes, the numbers are not comparable.
The scope facts that carry the fee
For FY 2025-26 the content of the file is set by section 92D read with Rule 10D. For tax year 2026-27, the 2025 Act's first year, that duty runs through section 171(1) and Rule 84. Our note on what Rule 10D requires works through the items one by one, and a file answers the rule in force for the year it covers. How much original analysis each item needs in your own facts varies from one taxpayer to the next.
The gap between the list and the work separates two quotes. The rule asks the same categories of every taxpayer and says nothing about how much thinking each category needs. Firms applying it can reach figures far apart without either misreading it.
The items that move a quote split into two groups: those the statute puts there, and those the firm decides.
Scope fact | What it changes in the work | Set by |
|---|---|---|
Entities in scope | Each entity brings its own functions, assets and risks write-up, its own financials and its own set of transactions | Statutory in both years: section 92D with Rule 10D, then section 171(1) and Rule 84; your structure sets the count |
Tested transactions | A management fee, a purchase of goods, a royalty and a loan are four method decisions, and Part E of Form 48 asks for the method and comparables transaction by transaction | Statutory in both years, transaction by transaction |
Tested party and FAR depth | A tested party chosen late reopens the analysis beneath it; depth follows how much of the decision turns on functions, assets and risks | The firm's judgment |
Jurisdictions | A second country adds a second rule set, a second comparable set and a second reviewer | Your counterparties set the count; the firm prices the work |
Comparables, fresh or carried forward | A fresh search means screening, a rejection log and a defensible set; a roll-forward updates margins on a set that already exists | The firm's judgment, bounded by how far the facts changed |
Master File and country-by-country reporting | Group-level deliverables, scoped and priced apart from the local file | Statutory where the thresholds are crossed, in both years |
One category tested across two entities is a lighter engagement than four categories tested across three countries. A2 Consultants, writing on the same question, puts preparation cost on the number and complexity of related-party transaction categories. Revenue enters mainly through the thresholds that decide whether the provisions apply at all.
Depth is the row buyers underestimate. The functional analysis defends the tested party, and it is the part the Transfer Pricing Officer reads first. A quote that prices two pages of functions analysis and a quote that prices interviews across three departments carry the same heading in the proposal and a different amount of work behind it.
Jurisdictions work the same way. A second country rarely doubles the comparable work, because the local rules decide which party may be tested and which comparable set will be accepted. Group functions in one country and counterparties in another make the file longer in both places.
A quote that cannot name the entities it has priced, or the number of transaction categories inside the fee, has not yet told you what it costs.
Which parts recur every year, and which are one-off
The first year of a file is not the same engagement as the year after it. Steadfast Consultants, writing on engagement cost drivers, puts the build in year one: the functional analysis, the search strategy, the screening criteria and the rejection matrix are made once and then maintained, as their note on what drives a transfer pricing engagement describes.
A refresh is a different piece of work. The analysis is re-tested against new financials and new comparable data, the margin range is rerun, and the reasoning is checked against whatever changed in the business during the year. Most groups settle into that rhythm after the first file and price it accordingly.
The two quotes in front of you may not be for the same year. FY 2025-26 is the last season certified under the 1961 Act, and the first year under the 2025 Act is being built alongside it, which the note on the last Form 3CEB season sets out. A firm quoting the closing year alone and a firm quoting both are answering two different questions.
A roll-forward price assumes last year's file exists and can be relied on. Where the firm quoting did not write that file, the assumption is being made about another firm's work, and the cost of the first-year build returns inside a renewal quote.
Changes to the business reset the build: a new transaction category, a new counterparty jurisdiction, an acquisition, or a different tested party. Each one leaves part of last year's analysis obsolete, and a quote given before the change was known will be re-scoped once it is.
A renewal should also itemise what it refreshes: the comparable set and the date it was last screened, the intercompany agreements still in force, and any adjustment carried from the prior year. Those items are cheap to state in a quote and expensive to discover afterwards.
The analysis also has to exist as the transactions happen, not in the week the report falls due. A group that keeps the file current carries a lighter refresh into the next year, and one that rebuilds from memory every year pays for the build twice.
The work that is not the study: report, filing and audit support
The commonest reason two quotes will not line up is that one carries work the other leaves out. The accountant's report, the filing that follows it, and the support after an examination travel with the study without being part of it.
Section 92E requires a report from an accountant, as the bare text of section 92E sets out. Failure to furnish it lets the Assessing Officer direct a penalty of one hundred thousand rupees under section 271BA, which the bare text of section 271BA records, and a fee that covers the study and stops there leaves that exposure where it was.
For the 2026-27 tax year the report changes form: Form 48 under section 172 of the 2025 Act replaces Form 3CEB under section 92E of the 1961 Act, as this note on Form 48 sets out. Part E fixes the method and the comparables analysis transaction by transaction, and Part F certifies compliance with the documentation obligations. One form now reports on two obligations.
The certificate and the file are separate things. The FY 2025-26 documentation checklist makes the point plainly: the obligation to maintain documentation arises under section 92D read with Rule 10D, and the certification is not the documentation exercise. The file the report certifies has to be prepared as the transactions happen, rather than assembled after the accountant has signed.
The filing is the second item and it has its own cost. The form is verified and signed by the accountant, and every figure in it has to be traceable to the file. Where the two are produced by different teams, or in different years, the reconciliation is work someone pays for.
When the file is written after the report, the sequence reverses itself. The accountant certifies figures that the file is then built to support, and the reconciliation between the two becomes part of the fee. A quote that prices the report alone leaves that reconciliation unpriced.
Audit support is the third and the least visible. An assessment, a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, and the dispute that can follow are usually priced by time or by a retainer, so they rarely appear in a compliance quote unless it says so. A pair of quotes can differ by the whole of this item with neither firm mentioning it.
The three questions to put to each firm before comparing the number
The two numbers measure different things until the two scopes have been made to match. Send these questions to each firm, and ask for the answers by email so they can be held beside each other.
Which entities and which transaction categories does this fee cover? Ask them to name the entities and the categories, and to say which of those are tested in the document itself.
What is built this year, and what is carried forward? Where last year's file is being relied on, ask who wrote it, because a roll-forward over another firm's file is a rebuild priced as a refresh.
Does the fee include the accountant's report, the filing and audit support? For FY 2025-26 that means the section 92E report; for later years, the section 172 report in Form 48. Where those sit outside, ask for them to be quoted separately.
Take a group with three entities and two transaction categories, quoted by two firms for the same year. The first quote covers the file under section 92D and Rule 10D and nothing else; the second covers the file, the accountant's report and the filing. The second is larger, and it is also the only one of the two that closes the section 271BA exposure. Read as numbers alone, the first looks cheaper and buys less.
Suppose instead that both quotes include the report, and they still differ. The answer is usually in the first question: one firm has priced a single tested party for the services transaction and treated the goods purchase as outside scope, which the file cannot do if that purchase is a related-party transaction in the first place.
Set the three answers in one table, one column per firm, before the numbers are discussed at all. The row where the two answers part is the row the fee difference sits in, and it is usually the second or the third. That row is also the one to settle in writing before either engagement letter is signed.
Firms that answer the same three questions give you two scopes that can be read against each other, and a difference you can explain. Comparing the headline figures alone tells you which firm was working to the lighter scope, and nothing more.
Where the answers leave the quotes further apart than the numbers, we take the scope apart with the client before either is signed. Transfer pricing strategy support describes how that work runs.
Questions the two quotes usually raise
Is a TP study report mandatory? Where the transfer pricing provisions apply, yes. Section 92E requires a report from an accountant, and section 92D read with Rule 10D requires the file behind it. Failing to furnish the report exposes the taxpayer to a penalty of one hundred thousand rupees under section 271BA.
What is a transfer pricing study? It is the record of how each related-party transaction was priced: the functions, assets and risks of the entities compared, the method chosen, the comparables kept and rejected, and the resulting arm's length range. In India that study is the file the accountant's report certifies.
How to prepare a transfer pricing study report? Start from the transaction set and the tested party, fix the method per transaction, build or refresh the comparables, and record each rejection. The accountant's report follows, and it can only certify what the file already shows. What a transfer pricing study report must contain sets out the list.
This note rests on section 92D read with Rule 10D, section 171(1) and Rule 84, sections 92E and 172, section 271BA and the Form 48 reporting requirements, as read to 5 November 2026. It gives no fee figure, because none of the sources read for it carries both a scope and a date.
If the two quotes are still apart on scope after those questions, contact us, and we will say which of them covers the file, the report and the filing.
Financial Insights
Expert tips and emerging industry trends
Get started today
Let’s talk
If you are evaluating cross-border expansion, restructuring, or strengthening compliance and audit readiness, we can help you plan and execute with clarity.
Get started today
Let’s talk
If you are evaluating cross-border expansion, restructuring, or strengthening compliance and audit readiness, we can help you plan and execute with clarity.
Get started today
Let’s talk
If you are evaluating cross-border expansion, restructuring, or strengthening compliance and audit readiness, we can help you plan and execute with clarity.