Assessee's appeal allowed for re-evaluation by AO, following Tribunal's precedent on loan fee attribution.

The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue being restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-evaluation in line with the Tribunal's previous decisions. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and follow the established precedent of attributing only a portion (20-25%) of the loan syndication fee to the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Arm's-Length Price (ALP) of Loan Syndication Transaction (LST) and its allocation between the assessee and its Associated Enterprises (AE).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Arm's-Length Price (ALP) of Loan Syndication Transaction (LST) and its allocation between the assessee and its Associated Enterprises (AE):

The assessee, engaged in trading arrangers of securities, issue management, and private placement advisory services, filed its return of income declaring Rs. 52.84 crores. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted international transactions with its AE and referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO determined the ALP of the Syndicate Fee received by the assessee at 100%, contrary to the 50% shown by the assessee, resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 22.63 crores to the assessee's income.

The assessee appealed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), who upheld the AO/TPO's order, noting that a similar issue was decided against the assessee in the previous year (AY 2007-08).

During the hearing before the Tribunal, the assessee's representative argued that the Tribunal had previously deliberated on the issue for AY 2007-08, where only 20-25% of the loan syndication fee was attributable to the assessee, not 100%. The Departmental Representative supported the FAA's order, citing the case of Cybertech System & Software Ltd., which the Tribunal found irrelevant to the current issue.

The Tribunal reviewed the case of Cybertech System & Software Ltd. and found it unhelpful in adjudicating the present issue. The Tribunal then referred to its previous order for AY 2007-08, where it was established that the assessee's role in loan syndication was crucial, and only a portion of the syndication fee should be attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal cited similar cases, such as Calyon Bank Vs DDIT and M/s. Credit Lyonnais Vs ADIT, where 20% of the syndication fee was considered appropriate.

In the case of M/s. Credit Lyonnais Vs ADIT, the Tribunal held that the assessee's role in providing financial analysis and other services was essential for the loan syndication, but the interest income could not be attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to consider only the fee and charges received by the foreign branches, excluding interest, and apply a 20% rate for the adjustment.

Following the decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-evaluation, directing the AO to follow the previous decisions and allocate the loan syndication fee between the assessee and its AE accordingly, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Conclusion:

The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue being restored to the AO for re-evaluation in line with the Tribunal's previous decisions. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and follow the established precedent of attributing only a portion (20-25%) of the loan syndication fee to the assessee.

---