HARSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. DCIT., CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1041/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves HARSCO India Private Ltd appealing against the assessment order passed under sections 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was based on the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The primary contention was regarding the adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) by imputing notional interest on outstanding receivables from AEs, using SBI short-term deposit rates as the benchmark. The assessee argued that LIBOR rates should be used instead, citing previous Tribunal decisions in their favor for earlier assessment years. The Department of Revenue supported the TPO's decision, referencing Tribunal judgments that accepted short-term deposit rates for similar cases. The Tribunal, after considering various precedents and the nature of the transactions, decided in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the international nature of the transactions and the appropriateness of LIBOR rates.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473248 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Logix Microsystems Ltd vs. TA No 423/Bang/2019, CIT vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Private Ltd, DCIT vs. iGATE Global Solutions Ltd, CIT vs. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd, CIT vs. Aurionpro Solutions Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUVIBHA NOLKA
• Keywords: Set aside; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Notional interest
• Section: 143(3); 48; 13

Judgement Text

" ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 1 of 15 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1041/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2021-22) HARSCO India (P) Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AACCH0555L Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: CA Suvibha Nolka राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/03/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated, 06/09/2024, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in pursuant to the directions of the DRP, dated 19/08/2024 passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act for the A.Y.2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 2 of 15 ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 3 of 15 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the TPO has made adjustment by imputing the notional interest on the outstanding receivables from AEs by considering the SBI short term deposits as Arms’ Length Price. He has further submitted that the DRP has rejected the objections of the assessee on this issue despite the fact that for the preceding years i.e. A.Ys 2016-17 & 2017-18, this Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee., 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that, there are judgments of this Tribunal wherein the short term deposits rate has been considered as comparable price in respect of interest on outstanding receivables from AEs. The TPO as well as the DRP has followed the decisions of this Tribunal on this issue. Accordingly, the short-term rate for 45 days is considered as ALP for benchmarking the transaction of interest on outstanding receivables from AEs. He has relied upon the order of the TPO as well as the DRP. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material available on record. At the outset, we note that for the A.Ys 2016-17 & 2017-18, this Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee. However, the DRP has upheld the order of the TPO in making adjustment by adopting the SBI deposit rate in para 2.1.17 to 2.1.19 as under: “2.1.17 As regards adoption of ALP interest rate, in the facts of the case. we consider that, it is pertinent to look into the opportunity costs i.e.. the income that the assessee would ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 4 of 15 have earned, had the assessee received the amounts in time. This has to be determined taking into account the Indian market conditions, the assessee being taken as the tested party. Factoring these aspects, we are of the view, that the SBI short term fixed deposit interest rate may be the appropriate ALP rate to measure the interest compensation in these types of transactions. In this regard, we place reliance on the principle held by the Honourable Bangalore ITAT in the Case of Logix Microsystems Ltd (TA No 423/Bang/2019 dated 07.l0.2010) (2010-1 50-ITAT Bang-TP), under similar factual circumstances, wherein it was observed, \"While adopting the Indian rate, it is not proper to rely on PLR of the State Bank of India. This is because if the funds were brought in time and those funds were properly deployed, the assessee company may earn an income at the maximum rate applicable to deposits and not at the rate applicable to loans. We find it appropriate to adopt reasonable rate that would be available to the assessee on short-term deposits\". Accordingly, the action of TPO of adopting the SBI short term deposit interest rate for the subject year as the ALP interest rate is justified. As the SBI short term deposit rate is an index rate adopted under Indian conditions to charge interest it is not an ad hoc rate as contended by the assessee. Therefore, we reject the plea of the assessee to adopt LIBOR rate at the purpose of computing interest on outstanding receivables. 2.1.18 On the plea regarding the decision of Hon'ble TAT in assessee's own case, it is held that the general rule that is being applied over many years is that the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable in tax matters. This is because each year's assessment is final only for that year and does not govern later years. Each year's assessment and decision is hence final to only that financial year and hence so determines the liability of the assessee of that particular financial year or period. It is open to the authorities to consider the issues and position of the assessee in the subsequent years. 2.1.19 Conclusively, the Panel finds the contention of the assessee without any basis and therefore, concurs with the action of the TPO. Accordingly, the plea of the assessee on these grounds are hereby rejected.” 6. It is pertinent to note that, not following the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case amounts to judicial ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 5 of 15 indiscipline on the part of the DRP. However, since the issue has now come up before the Tribunal, therefore, we will discuss the merits of this issue. The basic question before us is, whether for benchmarking the outstanding receivables from AEs, the comparable interest rate should be PLR rate/SBI short term rate or LIBOR rate/LIBOR+ mark up. This issue was considered by the Chennai Special Bench of this Tribunal in case of Shiva Industries & Holdings Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax reported in 46 SOT 112/11 Taxmann.com 404 (SB) and held in para 11 as under: “11. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the TPO clearly shows that the assessee had raised the funds by way of issuance of 0 per cent optional convertible preferential shares. Thus, it is noticed that the funds raised by the assessee company for giving the loan to India Telecom Holdings Ltd., Mauritius, which is its Associated Enterprises and which is the subsidiary company, is out of the funds of the assessee company. It is not borrowed funds. The assessee has given the loan to the Associated Enterprises in US dollars. The assessee is also receiving interest from the Associated Enterprises in Indian rupees. Once the transaction between the assessee and the Associated Enterprises is in foreign currency and the transaction is an international transaction, then the transaction would have to be looked upon by applying the commercial principles in regard to international transaction. If this is so, then the domestic prime lending rate would have no applicability and the international rate fixed being LIBOR would come into play. In the circumstances, we are of the view that it LIBOR rate which has to be considered while determining the arm's length interest rate in respect of the transaction between the assessee and the Associated Enterprises. As it is noticed that the average of the LIBOR rate for 1-4-2005 to 31-3-2006 is 4.42 per cent and the assessee has charged interest at 6 per cent which is higher than the LIBOR rate, we are of the view that no addition on this count is liable to be made in the hands of the assessee. In the circumstances, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer on this count is deleted.” ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 6 of 15 7. Thus, a transaction of loan to the AEs in foreign currency is considered as international transaction between the assessee and its AEs, then the transaction would have to be looked upon by applying the commercial principles in regard to the international transactions. Therefore, the domestic prime lending rate or domestic deposit rate would have no applicability on international transaction, but the international rate being London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) or similar rate i.e. Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR) would govern the international transactions of lending by the assessee to the AEs. This issue also came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Private Ltd, reported in 276 CTR 445 (Del.) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in para 35 to 40 as under: “35. The LIBOR rate plus markup or the interest rate prevailing in the United States at that time, i.e. 2003 have not been examined and are not the basis on which the TPO made the adjustment and compute the interest rate for the transaction under consideration. It claimed that the LIBOR rates in the year 2002 varied between 1.447 % to 3.006 % and in the year 2003 between 1.201% to 1.487%. Rates in the year 2004 were again marginal, with the highest at 3.100% and the lowest at 1.340%. The LIBOR rate of 5.224% quoted in the TPO's order, it is pointed out, was the rate received on the investment made during the assessment year in question by the assessed. Thus, it was argued that the present case is of a long-term loan granted to the AE and the rate of interest charged was much higher than the then prevailing LIBOR interest rate. There is no finding of the TPO, the DRP or the Assessing Officer questioning the long-term transaction as such. 36. Under sub-rule (4) to Rule 10B, the data used for comparability of the uncontrolled transaction should be the data relating to the financial year in which the international ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 7 of 15 transaction has been entered into. The proviso permits consideration of data, not more than two years prior to the financial year, if such data reveals facts which would have influenced determination of transfer price in relation to the transaction being compared. The transaction in question was entered into in the year 2002-03 when the loans were granted to the AE. This was the financial year of the international transaction. Payment of interest is also an international transaction but would have reference to the year in which the loan was granted in case of a long term loan. However, in such situations, question may arise whether the case would fall under the second exception mentioned in the case of E.K.L. Appliances (supra), when an AE has the right to recall and ask for repayment of loan. These aspects have not been considered and applied by the TPO, DRP and the Assessing Officer. Neither has this ground been argued before us on behalf the Revenue. We, therefore, would not proceed to examine the said aspect and leave the question open. Similarly, we have not expressed any opinion on the issue or question of \"thin capitalization\" which does not arise for consideration in the present case. 37. We observe that whatever the Revenue argues and submits in the case of outbound loans or for that matter what we have observed would be equally applicable to inbound loans given to Indian subsidiaries of foreign AEs. The parameters cannot be different for outbound and inbound loans. A similar reasoning applies to both inbound and outbound loans. Revenue has erroneously argued that different parameters would apply for inbound and outbound loans, which is not acceptable. 38. The DRP referred to the PLR rates fixed in India. It is evident that the PLR rates were not the basis for fixing the arm's length price. Both TPO and the DRP have referred to the PLR rates only by way of analogy so as to state the prevailing interest rates in India, but while applying CUP method for comparability, they had applied LIBOR rates prevailing and had applied a mark-up of 700 points on account of low credit rating of the subsidiary AE and the cost of transaction. 39. The question whether the interest rate prevailing in India should be applied, for the lender was an Indian company/assessee, or the lending rate prevalent in the United States should be applied, for the borrower was a resident and an assessee of the said country, in our considered opinion, must be answered by adopting and applying a commonsensical and pragmatic reasoning. We have no ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 8 of 15 hesitation in holding that the interest rate should be the market determined interest rate applicable to the currency concerned in which the loan has to be repaid. Interest rates should not be computed on the basis of interest payable on the currency or legal tender of the place or the country of residence of either party. Interest rates applicable to loans and deposits in the national currency of the borrower or the lender would vary and are dependent upon the fiscal policy of the Central bank, mandate of the Government and several other parameters. Interest rates payable on currency specific loans/ deposits are significantly universal and globally applicable. The currency in which the loan is to be re-paid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. the rate of interest. Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions (Third Edition) under Article 11 in paragraph 115 states as under:— \"The existing differences in the levels of interest rates do not depend on any place but rather on the currency concerned. The rate of interest on a US $ loan is the same in New York as in Frankfurt-at least within the framework of free capital markets (subject to the arbitrage). In regard to the question as to whether the level of interest rates in the lender's State or that in the borrower's is decisive, therefore, primarily depends on the currency agreed upon (BFH BSt.B1. II 725 (1994), re. 1 § AStG). A differentiation between debt-claims or debts in national currency and those in foreign currency is normally no use, because, for instance, a US $ loan advanced by a US lender is to him a debt-claim in national currency whereas to a German borrower it is a foreign currency debt (the situation being different, however, when an agreement in a third currency is involved). Moreover, a difference in interest levels frequently reflects no more than different expectations in regard to rates of exchange, rates of inflation and other aspects. Hence, the choice of one particular currency can be just as reasonable as that of another, despite different levels of interest rates. An economic criterion for one party may be that it wants, if possible, to avoid exchange risks (for example, by matching the currency of the loan with that of the funds anticipated to be available for debt service), such as taking out a US $ loan if the proceeds in US $ are expected to become available (say from exports). If an exchange risk were to prove incapable of being avoided (say, by forward rate fixing), the appropriate course would be to attribute it to the economically more powerful party. But, exactly where there is no 'special relationship', this will frequently not be possible in dealings with such party. Consequently, it will normally not be possible to review and adjust the interest rate to the extent that such rate depends on the currency involved. Moreover, it is ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 9 of 15 questionable whether such an adjustment could be based on Art. 11 (6). For Art. 11(6), at least its wording, allows the authorities to 'eliminate hypothetically' the special relationships only in regard to the level of interest rates and not in regard to other circumstances, such as the choice of currency. If such other circumstances were to be included in the review, there would be doubts as to where the line should be drawn, i.e., whether an examination should be allowed of the question of whether in the absence of a special relationship (i.e., financial power, strong position in the market, etc., of the foreign corporate group member) the borrowing company might not have completely refrained from making investment for which it borrowed the money.\" 40. The aforesaid methodology recommended by Klaus Vogel appeals to us and appears to be the reasonable and proper parameter to decide upon the question of applicability of interest rate. The loan in question was given in foreign currency i.e. US $ and was also to be repaid in the same currency i.e. US $. Interest rate applicable to loans granted and to be returned in Indian Rupees would not be the relevant comparable. Even in India, interest rates on FCNR accounts maintained in foreign currency are different and dependent upon the currency in question. They are not dependent upon the PLR rate, which is applicable to loans in Indian Rupee. The PLR rate, therefore, would not be applicable and should not be applied for determining the interest rate in the extant case. PLR rates are not applicable to loans to be re-paid in foreign currency. The interest rates vary and are thus dependent on the foreign currency in which the repayment is to be made. The same principle should apply.” 8. The Hon'ble High Court has answered the question whether the interest rate prevailing in India should be applied for the lender who is an Indian Company/Assessee or the lending rate prevailing in the US, the place of the AE should be applied. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the interest rate should be the market determined rate applied to the currency concerned in which the loan has to be repaid. The interest rate should not be computed on the basis of interest payable on the currency or legal tender of the place or the country of resident of either party. Once ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 10 of 15 the loan or credit is given in foreign currency and also to be repaid in same currency, the interest applicable to loan granted and to be returned in Indian rupee would not be the relevant comparable. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the PLR rate would not be applicable and should not be applied for determining the interest rate in such cases where loan to be repaid in foreign currency. This issue was again considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd reported in (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 206 (Bom.) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer to benchmark the interest at the prevailing EURIBOR rate instead of rupee loan rate to be computed at Arms’ Length on the loan advanced to the AE. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court in para 7 & 8 are as under: “7. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal inter alia has followed the decisions of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in cases of VVF Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 673 (Mum.) of 2006] and Dy. CIT v. Tech Mahindra Ltd. [2011] 12 taxmann.com 132/46 SOT 141 (Mum.) (URO) to reach the conclusion that ALP in the case of loans advanced to Associate Enterprises would be determined on the basis of rate of interest being charged in the country where the loan is received/consumed. Mr. Suresh Kumar the learned counsel for the revenue informed us that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in VVF Ltd. (supra) and Tech Mahindra Ltd. (supra) on the above issue. No reason has been shown to us as to why the Revenue seeks to take a different view in respect of the impugned order from that taken in VVF Ltd. (supra) and Tech Mahindra Ltd. (supra). The Revenue not having filed any appeal, has in fact accepted the decision of the Tribunal in VVF Ltd. (supra) and Tech Mahindra Ltd. (supra). 8. In view of the above we see no reason to entertain the present appeal as in similar matters the Revenue has ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 11 of 15 accepted the view of the Tribunal which has been relied upon by the impugned order. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law.” 9. We further note that, the Pune Benche of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. iGATE Global Solutions Ltd reported in (2019) 109 Taxmann.com 48 (Pune) has again discussed this issue elaborately in Para 4 to 10 as under: “4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is observed from the order passed by the TPO that the assessee advanced loans to its two AEs, one in the USA and the other in Germany. Insofar as loan to Symphoni Interactive LLC, an Associated Enterprise in the USA is concerned, the assessee charged interest @ 6%. The ld. CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee also paid interest to another AE in the USA, namely, iGATE Corporation, USA at 5.9% on its External Commercial Borrowings (ECB). He further recorded in para 57 of the impugned order that the TPO accepted this transaction and made no transfer pricing adjustment on this score, thereby, he also impliedly accepting this transaction at ALP. The viewpoint of the ld. CIT(A) on this point is not fully correct. We have noted above that the TPO worked out the transfer pricing adjustment by considering the loans advanced by the assessee to both of its AEs, including Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA. Be that as it may, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) also impliedly accepted the interest earned by the assessee from Symphoni Interactive LLC, USA, at 6% as at ALP, against which the Department has no grudge as the assail is only to the application of EURIBOR of 4.42%, which relates to the loan advanced by the assessee to Mascot GmbH, Germany. As such, we are confining ourselves only to international transaction of receipt of interest from Mascot GmbH, Germany. As against the assessee charging interest at the rate of 1.50% from Mascot GmbH, Germany, the TPO determined the arm's length rate of interest at 14%, which the ld. CIT(A) reduced to 4.42% by treating it as the average EURIBOR rate for the year under consideration. 5. There are two facets of the dispute raised by the Revenue on this issue. The first is that the rate of interest should be considered with reference to the prime lending rate prevalent ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 12 of 15 in India and the second is that the reduction in rate to 4.42% by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified. 6. As against the TPO's point of view that since the assessee in India advanced loan to its AE in Germany, which if not given, would have fetched interest @14% in India, the ld. CIT(A) has held that interest rate prevalent in the country in which the loan is received, should be considered for determining the ALP of transaction of interest received. We find that there is almost judicial consensus ad idem at the higher appellate forums on the question of which country, that is the borrower or the lender, should be considered for determining the arm's length rate of interest on loans advanced to the AEs. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v.Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd . [2015] 56 taxmann.com 206/230 Taxman 649/374 ITR 516 has held that the ALP in case of loan advanced to AEs should be determined on the basis of rate of interest charged in the country where loan is received. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. [2015] 55 taxmann.com 523/231 Taxman 401 has also held that the currency in which the loan is to be repaid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. rate of interest. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. [2018] 301 CTR 642 has reiterated that the arm's length rate of interest is to be considered with reference to the country in which the loan is received and not from where it is paid. In view of these precedents, it is palpable that the viewpoint of the AO in considering the rate of interest prevalent in India, being, the lender country, as determinative of the ALP of rate of interest charged by the assessee, is not correct. To this extent, we uphold, in principle, the view canvassed by the ld. CIT(A) that the rate of interest prevalent in Germany, being, the country in which the loan was consumed, is determinative of the arm's length rate of interest charged by the assessee-lender. 7. Now we espouse the second facet of the dispute relating to the determination of the arm's length rate of interest. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has held that average EURIBOR for the A.Y. 2007-08 should be considered as a benchmark. In determining the average EURIBOR at 4.42%, he relied on an order passed by the Tribunal in which the average LIBOR was considered at 4.42%. In other words, the ld. CIT(A) considered EURIBOR as a comparable uncontrolled transaction for the purpose of benchmarking the rate of interest charged by the assessee. ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 13 of 15 8. At this juncture, we consider it expedient to clarify that EURIBOR (Euro Inter-bank Offered Rate) is not a rate of interest, in itself, at which loans are advanced by banks in Euros to borrowers. EURIBOR is a reference rate which is calculated from the average interest rate at which Euro Zone Banks offer lending on inter-bank market. While calculating EURIBOR, 15% of the lowest and 15% of the highest interest rates collected by a panel of European banks are eliminated and the remaining 70% form the basis for its calculation. In such circumstances, EURIBOR, being, not an average rate at which the loans are advanced by European banks to borrowers, cannot per se be characterized as a comparable uncontrolled rate of interest at which loans are advanced in Germany. 9. On lines of EURIBOR, there is LIBOR (London Inter-bank Offered Rate), another rate which is applied on behalf of British Bankers Association. Similar to EURIBOR, LIBOR is also a rate at which major global banks lend to one another in the international inter-bank market on short-term basis. In calculation of LIBOR, 25% of lowest and 25% of the highest values are eliminated and the remaining 50% are considered for determining LIBOR. Therefore, LIBOR, as such, can also not be construed as a comparable uncontrolled transaction. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. [2017] 99 CCH 70 approved the action of the Tribunal in considering LIBOR +2% as the arm's length rate as against the TPO applying LIBOR plus 3%. Drawing an analogy from this position, we hold that EURIBOR+2% should be considered as arm's length rate of interest for determining the ALP of the international transaction of interest received by the assessee from Mascot Systems GmbH, Germany. 10. Before parting with this issue, we would like to clarify that the ld. CIT(A) has considered 4.42% as EURIBOR applicable for the assessment year under consideration by relying on an order of the Tribunal, in which the average LIBOR was considered at this level. Equality of LIBOR and EURIBOR could not be substantiated from any material on record. In the given circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for considering EURIBOR +2% as arm's length rate of interest to be applied on loan advanced by the assessee to Mascot Systems GmbH, Germany. In case EURIBOR +2% turns out to be lower than 4.42% as directed to be applied by the ld. CIT(A) on the understanding of the same being EURIBOR simplicitor, then the addition should be restricted with reference to 4.42% rate of interest, as the assessee is not in ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 14 of 15 appeal on this issue. In the otherwise scenario, the relief allowed by the ld. CIT(A) will be restricted pro tanto.” 10. Therefore, we find force in the assessee’s case to adopt LIBOR rate for benchmarking the transactions of outstanding receivables from the AEs. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer/TPO is directed to adopt the LIBOR + 200 basis as comparable rate for benchmarking the transaction of outstanding receivables from AEs after allowing a credit period of 60 days as a normal credit period without any interest. 11. In Ground No.8, the assessee has raised the objection regarding incorrect computation of interest u/s 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961. The levy of interest u/s 234C is mandatory and consequential. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the same after giving effect to the order of this Tribunal. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 6th March, 2025 Vinodan/sps ITA No 1041 of 2024 HARSCO India Private Ltd Page 15 of 15 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 HARSCO India (P) Ltd, 8th Floor, Western Aqua, Plot No.1-4 Survey No.8 Kondapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad 500084 2 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1) Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad 500017 3 Pr. CIT – Hyderabad & Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "