Candour Legal – Best Lawyers in Ahmedabad | Law firm in Ahmedabad
India’s global capability centre ecosystem reached a structural inflection point in 2025. For the first time, the dollar value of brownfield expansions outpaced greenfield entries by roughly fifteen to one. The 115–120 brownfield expansions tracked during the year carried a combined value of USD 11–14 billion; the 100 new entrants generated USD 750–930 million. The shift matters legally because brownfield expansion is not just an operational scaling — it is a legal event. When a GCC incorporated as a lean wholly owned subsidiary to handle IT support functions begins to run product development, manage artificial intelligence models, own intellectual property, and hold sensitive personal data under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, its original legal structure, transfer pricing arrangements, and compliance posture are almost certainly inadequate for what it has become.
Key Takeaways
- India hosts approximately 1,700 GCCs contributing over USD 64–68 billion in annual revenue and employing 1.9 million professionals. NASSCOM and Zinnov project the ecosystem will reach USD 99–105 billion by 2030.
- In 2025, brownfield GCC expansions (USD 11–14 billion) exceeded greenfield entrants (USD 750–930 million) by approximately 15:1. 63% of GCCs established five or more years ago have reached Portfolio or Transformation Hub maturity — a mandate their original legal structures were not built to support.
- The four primary entry structures — Wholly Owned Subsidiary (WOS), LLP, Branch Office, and Liaison Office — carry materially different implications for corporate tax rate, Permanent Establishment exposure, FDI route, and transfer pricing defensibility.
- Transfer pricing under Sections 92–92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 governs every intercompany transaction. The cost-plus model that works for a support-function GCC may produce understatement of Indian taxable income when the entity begins generating patentable output or managing global AI models.
- The DPDP Act, 2023 and its 2025 Rules require GCCs processing personal data to comply with consent architecture, data localisation requirements, and data principal rights obligations.
- The Gujarat GCC Policy 2025–2030 (promulgated 11 February 2025) targets ₹10,000 crore in investment across 250 new GCC centres, with Ahmedabad leading the state footprint at 17%. The IFSCA (Global In-House Centres) Regulations, 2020 provide a separate GIFT City route for financial services GCCs.
The Four Legal Structures and What They Actually Determine
The entity selection decision for a GCC entering or expanding in India is made under the Companies Act, 2013, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), the FEMA (Establishment in India of Branch Office, Liaison Office, Project Office or Any Other Place of Business) Regulations, 2016, and the applicable FDI Policy. The choice carries downstream consequences in five areas: corporate tax rate, Permanent Establishment (PE) exposure, permissible activities, capital repatriation mechanics, and transfer pricing defensibility.
A Wholly Owned Subsidiary, incorporated as a private limited company under the Companies Act, 2013, is the dominant structure for GCC builds at scale. It is a separate legal entity, attracting the domestic corporate tax rate (25% for companies with annual turnover under ₹400 crore, or 22% under the optional Section 115BAA concessional regime), with no inherent PE exposure provided intercompany transactions are arm’s length. FDI in IT services qualifies for 100% investment under the automatic route without prior government approval. The WOS requires at least two directors (including one resident Indian director) and two shareholders, with no minimum paid-up capital requirement for private companies.
A Branch Office operates as a direct extension of the foreign parent, regulated by the Reserve Bank of India, with prior RBI approval required. It is taxed at the higher foreign company rate (typically 40% plus surcharges), and PE exposure is materially higher because the Branch Office is by definition a permanent establishment of the foreign entity. A Limited Liability Partnership under the LLP Act, 2008 offers governance flexibility and no minimum capital requirement, taxed at 30% plus applicable surcharge. A Liaison Office is the most restricted form — a pure cost centre that cannot generate income in India and cannot evolve to a GCC at scale without a full restructuring and fresh FEMA approval cycle.
| Structure | Tax rate | PE exposure | FDI route | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WOS | 22–25% | Low (if arm’s length) | 100% automatic | GCC at scale; all sectors |
| LLP | 30% + surcharge | Low | Automatic (sector-restricted) | Niche / professional services |
| Branch Office | 40%+ (foreign) | High (inherent PE) | RBI prior approval | Narrow use cases only |
| GIC at GIFT City | IFSC concessional | Non-resident classification | IFSCA regulated | Financial services GCCs only |
| Liaison Office | N/A | Low | RBI prior approval | Market entry only; cannot scale |
The Brownfield Restructuring Trigger: When the Old Structure Fails
The legal problem with brownfield expansion is that the entity most GCCs originally chose — a lean WOS for IT support functions — was structured for a specific functional profile. When that entity evolves into a product development hub, owns intellectual property, manages AI models, or employs senior professionals making decisions affecting global operations, the legal, tax, and compliance assumptions built into the original structure require reassessment across four specific areas.
Transfer pricing model adequacy. GCCs operating as captive service providers are typically priced on a cost-plus basis under the transactional net margin method, supported by documentation required under Sections 92D and 92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. When the functional profile shifts to developing patentable software, managing AI training pipelines, or providing strategic advisory functions, the cost-plus model may materially underprice the Indian entity’s contribution. Advance Pricing Agreements under Section 92CC offer prospective certainty. The Union Budget 2026 introduced a 15.5% safe harbour margin for qualifying GCC transactions.
Intellectual property ownership and assignment. The default position under the Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 17, first owner in employment) and the Patents Act, 1970 vests IP generated by employees in the Indian WOS, not the foreign parent. For a GCC with well-drafted intercompany IP assignment agreements, the assignment to the parent is legally effective and FEMA-compliant if treated as a current account transaction. Where IP assignment is structured as a royalty flow, the royalty attracts withholding tax of 10% (reducible under treaty) and must satisfy the arm’s length standard. GCCs that have been developing IP without a systematic assignment protocol are sitting on a FEMA compliance gap that becomes visible only when the parent attempts a portfolio consolidation or M&A transaction.
FEMA repatriation mechanics. A WOS repatriates value through dividends, interest on External Commercial Borrowings, and service fee payments. Each mechanism carries its own FEMA reporting obligation, withholding tax rate, and transfer pricing constraint. GCCs that allow intercompany receivables to accumulate without repatriation face automatic deemed export of capital under the FEMA framework, which can attract adjudication proceedings before the Enforcement Directorate.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 compliance. GCCs processing personal data are now subject to the DPDP Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025. The Act requires a defined consent architecture, data principal rights management (access, correction, erasure, grievance redressal), and cross-border data transfer compliance. For GCCs acting as data processors for their foreign parent, intercompany data processing agreements must satisfy both the DPDP Act’s obligations and the parent’s home-jurisdiction data protection requirements. The negative list of countries to which personal data transfer is restricted is yet to be finalised, making cross-border transfer compliance a moving target.
The GIFT City GIC Route: A Distinct Legal Architecture for Financial Services GCCs
The Gujarat GCC Policy 2025–2030, promulgated by the Government of Gujarat on 11 February 2025 through the Department of Science and Technology, offers employment-linked incentives, electricity duty exemptions, and interest subsidies. Within that framework, the GIFT City route under the IFSCA (Global In-House Centres) Regulations, 2020 carries a distinct legal architecture for financial services GCCs specifically.
A Global In-House Centre at GIFT City is not an ordinary WOS or Branch Office. It is an entity established within the IFSC, governed by the IFSCA as a unified regulator integrating the functions of SEBI, RBI, IRDAI, and PFRDA, required to serve exclusively entities within the parent’s financial services group regulated in their home jurisdiction. Business activities within the IFSC are conducted in freely convertible foreign currencies, and GIC entities are classified as non-residents for exchange control purposes — removing the FEMA capital account transaction constraint that applies to ordinary Indian WOS entities. The GIC route is directly relevant to banks, NBFCs, investment banks, insurance providers, brokerage firms, and stock exchanges seeking a currency-neutral, IFSCA-regulated captive centre.
The Ahmedabad and Gujarat Angle
Gujarat’s GCC footprint is concentrated in Ahmedabad (17% of the state’s 215 GCC units) and Vadodara (12%), against an all-India base of approximately 2,740 GCC units. The Gujarat GCC Policy 2025–2030 targets ₹10,000 crore in investment and 250 new centres, with a focus on IT and ITeS expansion, AI-driven digital transformation, financial services, data centres, and R&D hubs. For multinationals evaluating a Gujarat entry or brownfield expansion, the policy’s employment-linked incentives and interest subsidies reduce total operating cost in ways that affect the transfer pricing benchmarking, the equity capitalisation plan for the WOS, and the payroll compliance structure under the Code on Wages, 2019.
Ahmedabad’s positioning is also relevant to the DPDP compliance calculus. The talent ecosystem — strong in finance, engineering, and analytics across IIM-A, Nirma University, and Gujarat Technological University — is relatively less mature in DPDP compliance architecture than Bengaluru or Hyderabad. GCCs establishing in Ahmedabad should build DPDP compliance infrastructure into their India operating model from setup, not as a retrofit.
What Legal and Corporate Secretarial Teams Must Drive Now
For multinationals with existing GCCs in India approaching brownfield expansion, five legal workstreams are time-sensitive. First, a transfer pricing functional analysis to reassess whether the entity’s current characterisation and cost-plus margin remain defensible at the new functional profile. Second, an IP audit mapping what the Indian WOS has created, what has been assigned, and what exists unassigned on the Indian entity’s balance sheet. Third, a FEMA compliance review of intercompany receivables, dividend histories, and ECB cycles to identify any deemed-export exposure. Fourth, a DPDP Act gap analysis against the 2025 Rules covering consent architecture, data processor agreement templates, and data principal rights workflows. Fifth, a corporate governance review under the Companies Act, 2013 covering board composition, statutory register maintenance, and annual filing adequacy for the entity’s expanded scope.
Looking Ahead
The Indian GCC ecosystem is on a trajectory to double its economic output by 2030. The legal infrastructure that supports that growth — entity structuring, transfer pricing, IP governance, FEMA compliance, and data protection — has not scaled at the same pace. The GCCs that will absorb the lowest compliance cost in the next three to five years are those that treat brownfield expansion as a legal event and run the five workstreams above before expanding headcount, signing new intercompany agreements, or deploying new data processing pipelines.
The MeitY Single Window Portal for GCC approvals, signalled in the Union Budget 2025–26, will simplify the entry process when operational. It will not simplify the legal architecture decisions that determine whether a GCC creates sustainable value for the global group. Those decisions remain in the domain of structuring counsel.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the best legal structure for setting up a GCC in India?
The Wholly Owned Subsidiary (WOS) under the Companies Act, 2013 is the dominant structure for GCC operations at scale. It is a separate legal entity attracting the domestic corporate tax rate, with no inherent PE exposure if intercompany transactions are arm’s length, and 100% FDI under the automatic route for IT services. The Branch Office and LLP are viable in specific circumstances but carry trade-offs on tax rate, activity scope, and FDI eligibility.
What is Permanent Establishment (PE) risk for Indian GCCs?
PE risk arises when the Indian entity’s activities create a taxable presence of the foreign parent in India. A Branch Office is by definition a PE. A WOS does not create PE exposure per se, but risk can arise through dependent agent arrangements or expatriate secondments. Transfer pricing characterisation of the Indian entity as an independent service provider reduces PE exposure.
How does transfer pricing affect GCC operations in India?
Transfer pricing under Sections 92–92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 governs every intercompany transaction. GCCs as captive service providers are typically priced on a cost-plus basis. As GCCs evolve to higher-value functions, the cost-plus model may understate the Indian entity’s contribution and attract adjustments. Advance Pricing Agreements under Section 92CC provide prospective certainty. The Union Budget 2026 introduced a 15.5% safe harbour margin for qualifying GCC transactions.
What does the DPDP Act 2023 require of GCCs in India?
The DPDP Act, 2023 and its 2025 Rules require GCCs processing personal data to establish a lawful basis for each processing category, implement data principal rights workflows, appoint a consent manager where applicable, and comply with cross-border data transfer restrictions. GCCs acting as data processors for their foreign parent must structure intercompany data processing agreements to satisfy both the DPDP Act obligations and the parent’s home-jurisdiction data protection framework.
What is the GIFT City GIC route and when is it relevant?
The IFSCA (Global In-House Centres) Regulations, 2020 enable financial services entities — banks, NBFCs, investment banks, insurance providers, and stock exchanges — to establish GICs at GIFT City under IFSCA regulation. Operations are in freely convertible foreign currencies and GIC entities are non-residents for exchange control purposes, removing ordinary FEMA capital account constraints. This route is relevant for financial services multinationals seeking a currency-neutral captive centre.
What legal steps are mandatory before a brownfield GCC expansion in India?
Five workstreams: (1) Transfer pricing functional analysis. (2) IP audit mapping created and unassigned IP on the Indian entity’s balance sheet. (3) FEMA compliance review of intercompany receivables and dividend histories. (4) DPDP Act gap analysis against the 2025 Rules. (5) Companies Act, 2013 corporate governance review covering board composition and statutory compliance for the entity’s expanded scope.
Speak to Candour Legal’s Corporate and GCC advisory team
Candour Legal advises multinational corporations on GCC legal structuring, entity selection, FEMA and FDI compliance, transfer pricing documentation, IP assignment frameworks, DPDP Act readiness, and GIFT City GIC setup across Gujarat and pan-India locations.
About the author
Manasvi Thapar, Founding Advocate at Candour Legal, advises multinational corporations on India market entry, GCC legal structuring, FEMA and FDI compliance, corporate governance under the Companies Act, 2013, and cross-border transactions.
» View the Candour Legal team · Schedule a call with Manasvi
Candour Legal is a full-service Indian law firm with offices in Ahmedabad, Mumbai, and New Delhi. The firm advises on Corporate and M&A, International Trade and Investment, FEMA and FDI, Banking and Finance, Intellectual Property, Litigation and Arbitration, and allied practices. More on Candour Legal’s practice areas.
