NORTONLIFELOCK INC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SYMANTEC CORPORATION),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1603/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 January 2021AY 2015-165 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its previous decision for the assessment year 2014-15, which had similar facts. It overturned the Assessing Officer's orders and directed the deletion of additions made by treating software sales revenue as Royalty income.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident company, sold software licenses in India and claimed the revenue as not taxable due to no Permanent Establishment. The Assessing Officer treated the sale of software products as Royalty income, making additions to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue from the sale of software products in India constitutes Royalty income taxable in India.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao
For Respondent: Shri Navin Gupta

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These two appeals by the assessee emanate from the final Assessment Orders dated 13-07-2018 and 26-07-2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.144C(13) read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively.

1405/PUN/2019 Norton Lifelock Inc.

2.

The only issue raised in these appeals through various grounds is against treating the amount on sale of software products as Royalty income.

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that the assessee is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of United States of America. In India, it is engaged in the sale of software licenses relating to information security and storage technology as well as provision of support and maintenance services with respect to the above software. During the assessment years under consideration, the assessee earned revenue from sale of software license in India including certification and software for authentication business, which was claimed as not chargeable to tax in India because of it not having any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The AO, by means of detailed orders, came to hold that the receipts derived by the assessee from sale of software license were taxable as Royalty. He fortified his conclusion by relying on the direction given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2014-15. That is how, the AO made an addition of Rs.19.62 crore and odd

1.

1405/PUN/2019 Norton Lifelock Inc. in his order for the A.Y. 2015-16 and Rs. 19.69 crore and odd in his order for the A.Y. 2016-17. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions through Virtual Court and scanned through the material placed before us. The core controversy arose in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 (ITA No. 2452/PUN/2017), which was extensively argued by the rival sides. In fact, both the sides simply adopted their respective arguments made for A.Y. 2014-15 insofar as the instant appeals are concerned. The Tribunal vide its order dated 11-01-2021 has addressed the issue allowing the appeal of the assessee. Since the facts and circumstances of the appeals under consideration are mutatis mutandis similar to those for the assessment year 2014-15 and further that the AO has relied on the order of the DRP for such earlier year, following the precedent, we overturn the impugned orders and direct to delete the above additions made by treating the revenue from sale of software products in India, either directly to end-customers or indirectly through Distributors or Resellers, as Royalty income.

1405/PUN/2019 Norton Lifelock Inc.

5.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th January, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 11th January, 2021 सतीश आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2.

3. The CIT(A)-13, Pune 4. The CIT (IT/TP), Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे 5. “सी” / DR ‘C’, ITAT, Pune गाड� फाईल / Guard file 6. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

1405/PUN/2019 Norton Lifelock Inc.

Date 1. Draft dictated on 08-01-2021 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 11-01-2021 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →