Shyam Telecom Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2683/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3165 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: I-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NOS. 2682 & 2683/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. SHYAM TELECOM LTD., A-60, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA-1, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI PAN :AAACS0297E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST A COMMON ORDER DATED 25/02/2013, PASSED BY THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-XX, NEW DELHI [ IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-1 0 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS INV OLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSE D OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR CONVENIENCE AND AVOI D REPETITION OF FACTS. APPELLANT BY SH. AJAY VOHRA, SR. ADV. SH. ABHISHEK AGGARWAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. BHAGWATI CHARAN, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 08.10.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.10.2021 2 ITA NO 2682 & 2683/DEL/2013 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST RATE OF 13% AS ARMS LENGTH INTEREST RATE, COMPUTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SUM LENT TO THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRIS E, BEING ITS US SUBSIDIARY. 2. THE LD. C1T(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THAT NO ENHANCEMENT IN THE INTEREST RATE OF 8% DULY CHARGED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISE WAS WARRANTED HAVING REGARD TO THE PREVAILING LIBOR RATE, RESERVE BANK O F INDIA GUIDANCE AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ACCEPTING A N AD-HOC MARK-UP OF 700 BASIS POINTS OVER THE LIBOR RATE WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AS TO HOW THE SAME WAS COMPUTED. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF A PPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THAT, EVEN IF THE I NTEREST RATE IS COMPUTED AS PER THE PARAMETERS TAKEN BY THE TPO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2007-08, THE INTEREST R ATE CANNOT EXCEED 11.7% AND APPLYING A 13% RATE BY THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER ON THE PRETEXT OF ROUNDING-UP WAS UNWARRANT ED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND / OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2.1 SIMILARLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST RATE OF 7.52% AS ARMS LENGTH INTEREST RATE, COMPUTED BY TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SUM LENT TO THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE, BEING ITS US SUBSIDIARY. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THAT NO ENHANCEMENT IN THE INTEREST RATE OF 3% DULY CHARGED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISE WAS WARRANTED HAVING REGARD TO THE PREVAILING LIBOR RATE. RESERVE BANK O F INDIA GUIDANCE AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. 3. THE LD. C1T(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ACCEPTING A N AD-HOC MARK-UP OF 500 BASIS POINTS OVER THE LIBOR RATE WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AS TO HOW THE SAME WAS COMPUTED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND / OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE AT ANY TI ME OF HEARING. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF BASED ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 3 ITA NO 2682 & 2683/DEL/2013 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS A TELECOM EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER, SUPPLYING INDOOR AN D OUTDOOR WIRELESS ENHANCEMENT SOLUTIONS SUCH AS RF REPEATERS , OPTICAL DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SOLUTIONS, IP CELLULAR BACKHAUL SYSTEMS, ETC. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED A SUBSIDIARY, NAMELY, SHY AM TELECOM INC (IN SHORT STI OR AE) IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) IN THE YEAR 2005 WHICH DEALS IN TELECOM EQUIP MENT MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROMOTES ITS BRAND GLOBALLY. 3.2 STI, BEING A RELATIVELY NEW ENTITY IN THE USA, IT REQUIRED WORKING CAPITAL AND FOR THIS PURPOSE IT RELIED ON P ARENT COMPANY I.E. THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08), ADVANCED A LOAN OF 14,95,77,721/- TO STI. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE CHARGED INTEREST RATE AT THE RATE OF 8% AN D FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE CHARGED INTER EST RATE OF 3% ON THE LOAN, THOUGH NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 CORRESPONDING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-0 7. 3.3 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE LEARNED TRANSFER PR ICING OFFICER (TPO) DETERMINED THE ARMS-LENGTH RATE OF I NTEREST ON THE LOAN AT 13% ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING METHODOLOGY: CUP RATE IS THUS ARRIVED AT AS UNDER: BASIC INTEREST RATE FOR THE CREDIT RATING OF THE AE LIBOR + 400 BASIS POINTS ADD: TRANSACTION COST 300 BASIS POINTS CUP RATE LIBOR + 700 BASIS POINTS ADD: ADJUSTMENT FOR SECURITY NOT COMPUTED FINAL CUP RATE LIBOR + 700 BASIS POINTS 3.4 THUS, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE LEARNED TPO F OR DETERMINING ARMS-LENGTH INTEREST RATE, INCREASED T HE LONDON 4 ITA NO 2682 & 2683/DEL/2013 INTER BANK OFFERED RATES (LIBOR) RATE OF INTEREST W ITH 400 BASIS POINTS ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT RATING OF AE AND FURTHE R 300 BASIS POINT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION COST. 3.5 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF BENCHMARKED THE TRANSACTION OF INTEREST AND DETERMI NED THE ARMS-LENGTH PRICE FOLLOWING THE APPROACH OF THE LE ARNED TPO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORK ED OUT ARMS-LENGTH INTEREST RATE AT SIX-MONTH LIBOR I.E. 4.7% + 700 BASIS POINTS I.E. 11.7% PER ANNUM, HOWEVER FINALLY ROUNDED TO 13% PER ANNUM AND MADE AN ADJUSTMENT OF 42,00,000/-. 3.6 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE ARMS-LENGTH INTEREST RATE AT SIX-MO NTH LIBOR I.E. 2.52 % + 500 BASIS POINTS I.E. 7.52 % AND MADE AN A DJUSTMENT OF 80,56,000/-. 3.7 THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE BENCHMARKING OF INTEREST AT LIBOR + 700 POINTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HOLDI NG THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT A BANKER AND IN VIEW OF CREDIT RATI NG AND TRANSACTION COST, THE LIBOR NEEDS TO BE MARKED UP BY 700 BASIS POINTS. SIMILARLY ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, BENCHMAR KING OF INTEREST RATE AT LIBOR+ 500 BASIS POINT WAS UPHELD. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 7.4. THIS MATTER CAN BE VIEWED FROM ANOTHER ANGLE AS WELL. ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED FUNDS FROM BANKS IN INDIA. TH E OPPORTUNITY COST OF LENDING MONEY TO ITS AE IS USING THE SAME M ONEY FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS IN INDIA (REDUCING THE BORROWING COSTS AT HOME). ON VERIFICATION FROM THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE O F THE HEARING, IT IS NOTICED THAT ON AN AVERAGE, THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 14.75% TO SBI ON CASH CREDITS AND AT THE RA TE OF 12% TO SYNDICATE BANK FOR TERM LOANS. IT MUST BE REMEMBERE D THAT THE CREDIT RATING OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA IS NOT THE S AME AS THE CREDIT RATING OF ITS AE IN FOREIGN MARKET. FROM THIS ANGLE ALSO, THE INTEREST 5 ITA NO 2682 & 2683/DEL/2013 RATES OF LIBOR + 700 & LIBOR + 500 BASIS POINTS FOR AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY SEEMS VERY REASONABLE. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO NOTE THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF H AS CHARGED INTEREST DURING THESE TWO YEARS. THEREFORE, ONLY RELEVANT QU ESTION IS THAT AT WHAT RATE INTEREST SHOULD BE CHARGED? THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER INTEREST SHOULD BE CHARGED AT ALL, AS THE APPELLANT ACCEPTS THAT INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE. AS THE CUP METHOD RESULTS INTO A SINGLE RATE OF INT EREST, NO FURTHER REDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) O N SUCH RATE IS APPLICABLE. PEROT SYSTEMS (SUPRA) IS RELIED IN THIS REGARD. THE CALCULATION OF 3 YEARS LIBOR RATE IS NOT APPLICABLE SINCE A SINGLE YEAR DATA NEEDS TO BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE AS PER T HE RULES. CREDIT RISK AND CREDIT RATING IS THE BASIS TO ARRIV E AT THE LIBOR PLUS. IT INCLUDES ALL RISKS INCLUDING COUNTRY RISKS, AND SUCH QUANTIFICATION LEADS TO LIBOR + 700 AND 500 BASIS POINTS. THEREFOR E, NO FURTHER ACCOUNTING OF COUNTRY RISK IS NECESSARY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING INTERESTS ON THE SUM LENT TO THE AE IN THE ORDERS FOR AY 2008-09 AND 2009-10 THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE I N THE ORDERS OF THE AO. THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH YEARS ARE REJECTED. 4. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE BASI S POINT MARKED UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON LIBOR RATE. T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT, IN CASE OF TRAN SACTION WITH AE NO MARKUP FOR CREDIT RATING AND TRANSACTION COST SH OULD BE APPLIED. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION, THE LEARNED CONSUL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS COTTON NATURALS (I) P LTD ( ITA 2 33/2014) AND DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LIMITED ( ITA NO. 435/2015). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. THE ONLY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IS REGARDING THE MARKU P OF 700 BASIS POINT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND MARKUP OF 500 POINTS IN 6 ITA NO 2682 & 2683/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 OVER THE LIBOR RATE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF ARMS-LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF INTEREST. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED FINDING OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN AY 2007-08, BUT IN AY 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED FOR SCHEME UNDER VIV AD -SE- VISHVAS ACT, 2020 AND WITHDRAWN HIS APPEAL. IN THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPUTING THE LI BOR RATE APPLICATION FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS-LENGTH PRICE OF THE TRANSACTION AND ONLY DISPUTING MARKUP OF 400 POINTS ON THE BASIS OF CREDIT RATING OF THE AE AND 300 POINTS ON THE BA SIS OF TRANSACTION COST. THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COTTON NATURAL (I) PVT. LTD (SUPRA), WH ICH IS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE ISSUE OF MARKUP FOR TR ANSACTION COST IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 31. ON THE QUESTION OF ADJUSTMENT, THE TPO REFERRE D TO THE FCNR LOAN ADVANCED BY THE POWER FINANCE CORPORATION TO T HE INDIAN COMPANY I.E. JINDAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LTD. OF U S$ 44.50 MILLION. INTEREST CHARGED IN THE SAID CASE WAS US L IBOR PLUS 350 BASIS POINTS FOR A COMPANY WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN BB+ CREDIT RATING. HOWEVER, FULL FACTS LIKE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION; RISK FACTORS ETC. ARE NOT ELUCIDATED. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE BANK OF BARODA WEBSITE THAT THE RATE OF INTEREST ON FCNR LOAN WERE BETWEEN 350-650 BASIS POINTS OVER LIBOR FOR THE FY 2006-07. TPO HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE SUBSIDIARY AE, INTEREST RAT E COULD BE TAKEN AS THE AVERAGE OF SIX MONTHS LIBOR PLUS 400 BASIS POIN TS. ON THE QUESTION OF TRANSACTION COST, IT WAS STATED THAT IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE BANK TO INSIST THAT THE BORROWER MUST BOOK FORW ARD CONTRACTS TO HEDGE THEIR POSITION. THE TPO REFERRED TO THE PREMI UM PAYABLE FOR UNDERTAKING THE SAID HEDGING TRANSACTIONS AND ADDED A COST OF 3% PER ANNUM AS PREMIUM, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID. AT THE SAME TIME, THE TPO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS NO T IN THE BUSINESS OF LENDING OR BORROWING MONEY AND OBSERVED THAT THE TAXPAYER'S RISK WAS HIGHER IN ADVANCING LOAN TO A S INGLE CUSTOMER, VIS A BANK WHICH SPREADS ITS RISK AMONG VARIOUS CUS TOMERS. BANKS SPREAD THEIR RISK WHEN LOANS ARE/WERE ADVANCED TO V ARIOUS 7 ITA NO 2682 & 2683/DEL/2013 CONSUMERS, BUT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN WHEN A LOAN IS GIVEN TO A SINGLE CUSTOMER. 32. ON THE QUESTION OF ADJUSTMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT O F THE TRANSACTION COST, WE DO NOT APPRECIATE THE REASONIN G GIVEN BY THE TPO AND FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT. THE TRANSACTIO N OR HEDGING COST IS BORNE AND PAID BY THE BORROWER. THESE ARE UNDERTAKE N WHEN THEY TAKE LOANS IN US DOLLARS OR OTHER FOREIGN CURRENCIE S BECAUSE THE BORROWER WANTS TO COVER ANY LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEPRECIATION OF THE INDIAN RUPEE VIS- A- VIS THE FOREIGN CURRENCY. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT THE BORROWER, BUT THE LENDER. T RANSACTION COST IS NOT, THEREFORE, APPLICABLE IN THE CASE IN QUESTION, AS THE LOAN HAD TO BE REPAID IN US DOLLARS. MARK UP TOWARDS THE TRANSA CTION COST IS EXORBITANT AND EVEN COMPARISON WITH BANKS IS UNSOUN D AND UNINTELLIGIBLE. RISK FACTOR ADJUSTMENT IS ALSO STRE TCHED, FOR IT IGNORES THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO AES AND THE FUNDS WERE THE SHAREHOLDER FUNDS, AND NOT BORROWED MONEY. 6.1 THE FINDING OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF EVERST KANTO CYLINDER LIMITED (SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ..IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE RATE TO BE USED FOR UNDERTAKING AN ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE LIBOR AND NOT T HE AVERAGE YIELD RATES CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED TPO. THE LIBO R RATE FOR MARCH 2008 WAS 2.6798%. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED 7% FROM ITS AE AS PER THE INTERNAL CUP AVAILABLE. THUS, THE ASS ESSEE HAS CHARGED INTEREST TO EKC DUBAI AND EKC CHINA AT THE RATE HIGHER THAN EXISTING LIBOR RATES. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID TR ANSACTION OF PROVIDING LOAN TO EKC DUBAI AND EKC CHINA IS AT ARM 'S LENGTH. ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. 6.2 THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COTTON NATURALS I PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS THUS HELD THAT TRANSACTION COST OR HEDGING COST IS TO BE BORN AND PAID BY THE BORROWER AND NOT BY THE LENDER AND THUS NO ADJUSTMENT FOR MARKUP OF TRANSACTION CO ST, IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED. IN THE CASE OF EVEREST KANT O CYLINDER LIMITED (SUPRA) LIBOR RATE HAS BEEN HELD AT ARMS L ENGTH IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, AND SAID RATIO CANNOT BE APPLIE D OVER FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. 8 ITA NO 2682 & 2683/DEL/2013 6.3 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AE WAS A RELATIVELY NEW E NTITY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CREDIT RATING OF THE S AME BEING NOT GOOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED LOAN TO THE AE, SO IF IN COMPARABLE SITUATION, A BANK IN INDIA SANCTION A LO AN TO ANY ENTITY IN USA IN UNCONTROLLED MANNER TRANSACTION, T HEN CREDIT RATING OF THE LOAN RECIPIENT ENTITY SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS FOLLOWED EARLIER AY 2007-08 AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION CREDIT RATING OF THE AE IN THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH HAS TO BE BASED ON SPECIFIC IN FORMATION AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION. BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A), THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED THE RBI MASTER CIRCULAR AND SUBM ITTED THAT INTEREST RATE ON FOREIGN CURRENCY WORKING CAPITAL L OAN FOR A PERIOD IN EXCESS OF 180 DAYS SHOULD BE AS UNDER: S. NO. RELEVANT YEAR INTEREST RATE (PER ANNUM) 1. 2006 LIBOR + 3% P.A. 2. 2008 LIBOR + 3% P.A. 3. 2009 LIBOR + 505% P.A. AVERAGE LIBOR + 3.83% P.A. 6.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT N O MARKUP FOR TRANSACTION COST SHOULD BE APPLIED ON LIBOR RAT E FOR BENCHMARKING OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION; HOWE VER, APPROPRIATE MARKUP FOR CREDIT RATING SHOULD BE APPL IED DEPENDING ON CREDIT RATING OF AE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 HAS NOT GIVEN ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLYING MARKUP OF 400 POINTS FOR CREDIT RATING AND, THEREFO RE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS RESTOR ED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING LIMITED ISSU E OF MARKUP FOR CREDIT RATING OVER LIBOR RATE OF INTEREST AFTER TAK ING INTO 9 ITA NO 2682 & 2683/DEL/2013 CONSIDERATION CRITERIA FOR CREDIT RATING DURING REL EVANT PERIOD. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH OCTOBER, 2021 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 8 TH OCTOBER, 2021. RK/- (DTDC) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI