SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 565/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6677 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UODHALRAJ SINGH DR VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Rectification of order; International transaction; Revised return
• Section: 144C; 192; 13; 22; 154; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S . RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 12 & 2012 - 13 ) M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PV T. LTD. UNIT NO. 1801, 18 TH FLOOR, THE CAPITAL, PLOT NO. 70, G. BLOCK, BANDRA - KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA, MUMBAI - 400 051 / VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 14(3)(2), MUMBAI PIN - ./ ./ PAN NO. AA BCV 2624 B ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. P. LOHIA, AR / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI UODHALRAJ SINGH, DR VIRTUAL D ATE OF HEARING : 23.07 .2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 5.09.2020 / O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE PRESENT T WO A PPEAL S HA VE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL - 2 IN SHORT REFERRED AS LD. DRP , MUMBAI DATED 14.12.2015 AND 08.12.2016 2 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR (IN SHORT A Y ) 2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13 RESPECTIVELY . 2 . SINC E THE ISSUES RAI SED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED, HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDE R. FIRSTLY, WE A RE TAKING APPEAL IN ITA NO. 565/MUM/2016 FOR AY 2011 - 12 . 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.11.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 99, 55,45, 172/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143 (1) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . T HE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR REGULAR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) AND 142 (1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS. IN RESPONSE , AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED RELEVANT INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES FOR MORE THAN 15 CRORES. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER. 3 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 5. T HE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO ) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IS A PART OF SYMA NTEC GROUP. ASSESSEE IS A SERVICE PROVIDER ENGAGED IN PROVIDING MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES, GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (REPORTED AS TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES) AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO THE OVERSEAS SYMANTEC GROUP ENTITIES. THE DETAILS OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GIVEN BELOW: - SR. NO. NATURE OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT (RS. METHOD 1. PROVISION OF MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES 54,82,56,061 TNMM USING OP/OC AS PLI 2. PROVISION OF GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE S 4,16,73,240 3. PROVISION OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (R & D FEES) 11,38,13,387 TNMM USING OP/OC AS PLI 4. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TO AES 98,06,8 45 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 5. RECOVERY OF EXPENSES FROM AES 43,19,216 RECOVERY OF EXPENSES. 6. TPO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE BENCHMARKED ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RENDERED TO ITS AES BY USING TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD USING OP/OC AS PLI. ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDED COPY OF AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN AES. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPARABILITY TP STUDY, ASSESSEES OPERATING MARGIN OF 12% FROM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SEGMENT IS COMPARED WITH 10 INDIAN COMPANIES 4 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. IDENTIFIED BY ASSESSEE HAVING WEIGHTED AVERAGE ARITHMETIC MEAN MARGIN OF 10.98%. THE UPDATED MARGINS FOR THE SELECTED COMPARABLE COMPANIES ARE GIVEN BELOW: - SR. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY FY 2010 - 11 1. AKSHAY SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 0.69% 2. CALIBER POINT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD (SEG) 2.16% 3. CAT TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 9.72% 4. CG - VAK SOFTWARE & EX PORTS LTD. (SEG) 4.98% 5. EVOKE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. 8.11% 6. GOLDSTONE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 6.01% 7. MAVERIC SYSTEMS LTD. - 9.68% 8. SAVERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (CONSOLIDATED SEG) 17.30% 9. THINKSOFT GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. 2.47% 10. THIRWARE SOLUTIONS LTD . 16.34% ARTHMETIC MEAN 5.81% 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, TPO REJECTED 6 COMPARABLES OUT OF 10 COMPARABLE COMPANIES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INCLUDED 3 NEW COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES I.E., HE INCLUDED 1. E - ZEST SOLUTIONS LI MITED. 2. INFOSYS LTD AND 3. WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES LTD (SEGMENTAL). 8. TPO FINALIZED THE REPORT WITH THE 7 COMPARABLES WITH A ARITHMETIC MEAN AVERAGE OF 22.72% AND ESTIMATED THE ADJU STED OPERATING REVENUE OF 13,03,56, 269/ AND CALCULATED THE AD JUSTED OPE RATING PROFIT OF 2,41,33, 755/ , DETERMINED THE ALP OF 1,65,42, 882/ . 5 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 9. FOR DETERMINING THE ABOVE ALP, TPO NOTICED THAT IN SEGMENT DETAILS PROVIDED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ALL THE INCOME AND EXPENSES RELATED TO R&D SEGMENT AND DIS CLOSED THE EARNINGS FROM THE SEGMENTS. THE PRESENCE OF THE COLUMN UNALLOCABLE EXPENSES /INCOME (WHERE NOTHING HAS BEEN ALLOCATED BY THE COMPANY) SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH ALLOCABLE ITEMS. HE NOTICED THAT IN THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT, THE ASSESS EE ON ITS OWN WISDOM HAS REDUCED THE OPERATING COST OF THE R&D DIVISION BY 46.03 LAKHS STATING IT TO BE EXPENSES TO BE ALLOCATED FROM P&L TO SEGMENTAL EXPENSES. (REFER NOTE BELOW) FURTHER HE OBSERVED THAT THE NOTE STATES THAT UNALLOCATED EXPENSES ARE A LLOCATED IN THE RATIO OF SEGMENTAL REVENUE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE AN ARBITRARY REDUCTION IN OPERATING COST IN THE TP STUDY, WHEN THE AUDITED FINANCIALS CLEARLY STATE THAT NO INCOME OR EXPENSE IS PENDING ALLOCATION. ACCORDINGLY HE REDUCED 46.03 LAKHS FROM THE OPERATING COST AS NOT ALLOWED. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THE TP ADJUSTMENT OF 1,65,42, 882/ TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP. 6 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. AFTER CONSI DERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DRP ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO OBJECTION ON INC LUSION OF COMPARABLE COMPANY M/S E - ZEST SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE TPO TO NOT TO BE TAKEN AS COMPARABLE. DRP REJECTE D ALL OTHER OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY , AO PASSED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THE TP ADJUSTMENT OF 1,43,97, 187/ . 11. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING 8 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD . AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS PRESSING GROUND NO. 3 AND GROUND NO. 4. ALL OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED. ACCOR DINGLY , ALL OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . 12. BEFORE US, LD AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS A CAPTIVE SERVICE ENTITY ENGAGED IN RENDERING MARKETING SUPPORT AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (AS TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES) AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS OVERSEAS AES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT TP STUDY AND BENCHMARKED ARMS LENGTH PRICE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO BENCHMARK AND METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES MARGIN STOOD AT 12% AND ASSESSEE HAS SELECTED 10 7 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. COMPARABLES AND TPO HAS REJECTED 6 COMPARABLES AND SELECTED 3 NEW COMPARABLES AND DETERMINED ARITHMETIC MEAN MARGIN OF 22.72%. HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE PARAS 14 AND 15 OF THE TPO ORDER IN WHICH TPO REJECTED TURNOVER FILT ER TO BE APPLIED TO SERVICE ORIENTED COMPANIES LIKE ASSESSEE THAT SERVICES LESS IN TURNOVER ARE ALSO FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT OR THAT THE ASSETS AND RISKS UNDERTAKEN ARE SUBSTANTIALLY AND MATERIALLY DIFFERENT, TURNOVER BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE A REASON TO DIFF ERENTIATE PROFITABILITY OF COMPARABILITY. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, TPO INCLUDED COMPANIES LIKE INFOSYS AND WIPRO. HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AT 11.38 CRORES WHEREAS TURNOVER OF THE INFOSYS IS 25, 385 CRORES. FURTHER H E BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE PAGE 630 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 13, IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE DRP THAT INFOSYS FAILS THE TURNOVER FILTER THAT IT IS HAVING TURNOVER MORE THAN HUNDRED CRORES. HE ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE CASE LAW IN WHICH INFOSYS WAS REJECTED AS COMPARABLE COMPANY EVEN THOUGH IT MATCHES PROFILES OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPARABLE COMPANIES AND INFOSYS ALWAYS REPORTED SUPER NORMAL PROFIT. HE ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE PAGE 631 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS 8 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. SUBMITTED A TABLE WITH A COMPARABLE CHART IN WHICH THE RISK PROFILE, NATURE OF SERVICES, REVENUE, INTANGIBLES, PRODUCTS AND BRAND OWNERSHIP WERE COMPARED WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 13, THE H ONBLE DRP HAS ACCEPTED T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED TPO TO EXCLUDE INFOSYS FROM THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES BY RELYING ON DECISION OF H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND ITAT. FURTHER HE ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ORDER OF DRP FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 16 IN WHICH DRP HAS ISSUED SIMILAR DIRECTION AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 13. 13. HE ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF PCIT VERSUS M/S CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS ITA 333/2019 IN WHICH H ONBLE HIGH COURT REJECTED THE COMPANY INFOSYS AS COMP ARABLE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TP STUDY. THE ABOVE CASE WAS REFERRED TO H ON BLE SUPREME COURT AND H ONBLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE COPY OF THE RESPECTIVE DECISIONS ARE PLACED AT PAGE 657 AND 658 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALS O BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE DECISION OF THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED . THE COPY OF THE 9 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. DECISION IS PLACED AT PAGE 668 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO BROUGHT TO NOTICE OTHER DECISIONS OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES AND PRAYED THAT THIS COMPANY SHOULD BE DELETED AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 4, LD AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AMORTIZATION OF GOODWILL DURING T HIS YEAR TO THE EXTENT OF 45,51, 139/ (REFER PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AND BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TH E FIXED ASSETS SCHEDULE AS PER COMPANIES A CT AND PAGE 192 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS COMPUTATION STATEMENT, IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOWED THE TOTAL D EPRECIATION/ AMORTIZATION CLAIMED AS PER COMPANIES ACT AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AS PER SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT EXCLUDING AMORTIZATION OF GOODWILL. THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AS PER INCOME TAX ACT IS PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 192A OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE GOODWILL CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER COMPANIES ACT IS EXCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT FOR THE TAX PURPOSE. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE EXPENDITURE IS EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF T AX, THE SAME CANNOT BE PART OF A RM S LENGTH PRICE ADJUST MENT. 10 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 15. FURTHER HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 14, TPO HAS MADE SIMILAR ADJUSTMENT, THE DRP DIRECTED THE TPO TO EXCLUDE SUCH NON - OPERATING EXPENDITURE FOR CALCULATING PLI FOR COMPARABLE STUDY. THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP IS PLACED AT PA GE 655 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ITA NO. 5341/DELHI/2010, THE CASE OF HAWORTH (INDIA) PRIVATE L IMITED VERSUS DCIT. HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE RATIO OF THE DECISION PLACED AT PAGE 456 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN WHICH THE COORDINATE BENCH OF DELHI HELD THAT THE MAJOR COMPONENT OF RECEIPT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMMISSIO N INCOME AS IT CONSTITUTE 15,39,33, 769/ OF THE TOTAL OPERATING INCOME OF 17,73,98, 197/ . THEREFORE , IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT COMMISSION EXPENSES WHIC H HAVE BEEN S UO MOTO DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CLAIMED AS OPERATING EXPENSES WHILE COMPUTING THE ARM S LENGTH PRICE. IF THEY ARE SUBSEQUENTLY DISALLOWED S UO MOTO BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE OPER ATING COST AND CALCULATION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED THAT ITS PROFIT MARGIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN ACCORDING TO THE INCOME COMPUTED IN THE REVISED 11 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. RETURN FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID THE DUE TAXES. ACCORDINGLY , CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. FURTHER, HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE CASE OF EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DCIT (ITA NO. 1621/PN/2011), IN THIS CASE THE COORDINATE B ENCH OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 1 0A ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ANY OF THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED BY IT S UO MOTO IN THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD THAT WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 92 OF THE A CT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE ARISING F ROM AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION SHALL ALSO BE DETERMINED HAVING REGARD TO ALP. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE OF 7,42,20, 575/ DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HAS ITSELF DISALLOWED THE SAME WHILE COMPUT ING ITS TAXABLE INCOME. THEREFORE , WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92 ARE NOT APPLICABLE. WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE CANNOT BE DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ALTHOUGH THE TRANSACTION 12 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. BETWE EN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AE FALLS WITHIN THE MEANING OF AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION STILL NO ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ALP CAN BE MADE SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HAS S UO MOTO ADDED THE AMOUNT WHILE COMPUTING ITS TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NO BENEFIT OF THE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN IN EITHER BY CAPITALIZING IT AND CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON IT OR TAKEN BENEFIT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. L D AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE BEFORE US IS SIMILAR. FURTHER HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE PAGE 518 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN THE CASE OF POLE TO WIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DCIT (IT (TP) A NO. 1275/BANG/2010, IN THE SIMILAR SITUATION ITAT BANGALORE A BENCH HELD THAT EXPENSES DISALLOWED SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM OPERATING COST IS WELL PLACED AND THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT EXPENSES DISALLOWED IN COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM OPERATING COST BY RELYING IN THE CASE OF HA WORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA). 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD . DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND DRP. 18. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT IN ORDER TO INCLUDE INFOSYS AS A 13 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. COMPARABLE COMPANY, TPO OBSERVED THAT TURNOVER FILTER TO BE APPLIED TO SERVICE ORIENTED COMPANIES LIKE ASSESSEE THAT SERVICES LESS IN TURNOVER ARE ALSO FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT OR THAT THE ASSETS AND RISKS UNDERTAKEN ARE SUBSTANTIALLY AND MATERIALLY DIFFEREN T, TURNOVER BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE A REASON TO DIFFERENTIATE PROFITABILITY OF COMPARABILITY, ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE. WE NOTICED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY 11.38 CRORES WHEREAS TURNOVER OF THE INFOSYS IS 25. 385 CRORES. FURTHER WE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DIFFERENTIATED FUNCTIONS, RISKS AND VARIOUS ASSETS HELD BY INFOSYS IS FAR BIGGER AND SUPERIOR C OMPARED TO ASSESSEE. IT IS A CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES AND VARIOUS COURTS THAT TURNOVER FILTER AND SIZE OF THE COMPARATIVE COMPANY DOES MATTER FOR THE COMPARABILITY STUDY. IT IS SETTLED MATTER THAT THE SIZE DOES MATTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF T P STUDY AND COMPARABILITY STUDY. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD AR AND THE VARIOUS CASE LAW RELIED BY HIM. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS THE DRP ITSELF HAS AGREED AND DIRECTED THE TPO TO EXCLUDE THE INFOSYS A S A COMPARABLE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUBSTANCE, WE DIRECT TPO TO EXCLUDE 14 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. THE COMPANY INFOSYS AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY REWORK THE BENCHMARK OF THE ALP PURPOSE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 19. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 4, WE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AMORTIZATION OF GOODWILL OF 45,51,139/ DURING THIS YEAR IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND WHILE CALCULATING COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS/PROFESSION, IT HAS DISALLOWED THE SAME IN THE COMPUTATION OF STATEMENT. THE EXPENDITURE/ AMORTIZATION OF GOODWILL IS NOT PART OF SEGMENTAL OPERATING COST. WE NOTICED THAT WHILE REPORTING THE SEGMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF SEGMENTS I.E., SALES AND MARKETING AND R&D SEGMENTS REPORTED AT SCHEDULE NO. 28 OF SCHEDULES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. IN THE ABOVE SCHEDULE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED THE TOTAL REVENUE AND SEGMENTAL EXPENSES TO BOTH THE SEGMENTS AND KEPT THE UNALL O CABLE EXPENSES/INCOME AS NIL. AS FAR AS THE SEGMENT RELEVANT FOR TP STUDY THAT IS R&D SEGMENT, IT HAS REPORTED TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE OF 11,38,13, 387/ AND TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OF 10,62,22, 514/ AND DEC LARED OPERATING PROFIT OF 75,90, 873/ . HOWEVER, WHILE DOING THE ANALYSIS OF SEGMENTAL MARGIN, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 15 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 165 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS REWORKED THE SEGMENTAL MARGIN AND ARRIVED AT THE OPERATING PROFIT AT 12%. IN THIS STUDY ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED SEGMENTAL PROFITS AS PER THE SCHEDULE 28 REPORTED ABOVE THAT SEGMENTAL PROFIT AT 75,90, 873/ FOR THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTS SERVICES AND IT HAS REDUCED THE UNALLOCATED EXPENSES FROM PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TO SEGMENTAL EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 46,03, 418/ (IT INCLUDES AM ORTISATION OF GOODWILL OF 45,51, 139/ ). AS PER THE NOTE 1 GIVEN IN THE ANALYSIS SHEET, IT STATES THAT UNALLOCATED EXPENSES ARE ALLOCATED IN THE RAT IO OF SEGMENTAL REVENUE. WE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALLOCATED TH E UNALLOCATED EXPENSES OF 48,99, 687 / BETWEEN THE SEGMENTS AS 2,96, 267/ IN MARKETING SU PPORT SEGMENT AND 46,03, 418/ IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SEGMENT. BUT THE NOTE DECLARES THAT IT IS ALLOCATED BASED ON SEGMENTAL REVENUE. 20. WITH REGARD TO CALCULATION OF SEGMENTAL RESULTS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD AR THAT THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS CAN BE DETERMINED ONLY WITH OPERATING INCOME AND OPERATING EXPENSES. EVEN THOUGH AS SESSEE HAS DETERMINED THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS AND DECLARED THE SAME IN SCHEDULE 28 OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. IT HAS DECLARED THAT THERE IS 16 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. NO UNALLOCABLE EXPENSES IN THE ABOVE SCHEDULE NO. 28 BUT HOWEVER WE ARE AWARE THAT AMORTISATION OF GOODWILL IS NOT PART OF OPERATING EXPENSES AND MOREOVER ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE ABOVE AMORTISATION OF GOODWILL AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THE VARIOUS DECISIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN S UPPORT OF THE ELIMINATION OF EXPENSES WHICH ARE NON - OPERATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING ALP AND ALSO WHEN A EXPENDITURE IS NOT CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING ALP. ACCORDINGLY , WE ARE DIRECTING THE TPO TO EXCLUDE THE NON - OPERATIVE EXPENSES WHILE DETERMINING THE OPERATING PROFIT OF THE REPORTED SEGMENTS. 21. HOWEVER AT THE SAME TIME WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THAT IT IS ALLOCATING THE UNALLOCATED EXPENSES BASED ON THE RATIO OF SEGMENTAL REVENUE BUT WHILE AL LOCATING THE UNALLOCATED EXPENSES, IT HAS ALLOCATED 46, 03, 418/ WITHOUT ANY BASIS TO THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SEGMENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ALLOCATED THE UNALLOCATED EXPENSES IN THE RATIO OF 85.15 : 14.85 BETWEEN THE SE GMENTS (WHICH IS THE RATIO OF OPERATING REVENUE). IN THE GIVEN CASE THE 17 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. AMORTISATION OF GOODWILL IS NOT AN OPERATING EXPENSES, IT SHOULD BE ALLOCATED BASED ON THE SEGMENTAL REVENUE BETWEEN THE SEGMENTS AND ACCORDINGLY WE ARE DIRECTING THE TPO TO ALLOCATE 1 4.85% OF THE AMORTIZED VALUE OF GOODWILL FOR THIS YEAR TO THE SOFTWARE AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SEGMENT. IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE TP STUDY, IT IS RELEVANT TO DETERMINE THE OPERATING MARGIN OF THE SEGMENT BEFORE IT CAN BE COMPARED WITH OTHER COMPARATIVE CO MPANIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ARRIVED THE MARGIN OF THE R&D SEGMENT AT 12% BY ALLOCATING THE UNALLOCATED EXPENSES WITHOUT PROPER BASIS. WHEN WE ALLOCATE THE UNALLOCATED EXPENSES IN THE OPERATING REVENUE BASIS, WE WILL KNOW THE EXACT OPERATING PROFIT FROM THE S EGMENT AND THEN THE TP ANALYSIS CAN BE CARRIED OUT BASED ON THE UPDATED SEGMENT RESULTS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE DIRECTING AO /TPO TO CALCULATE THE UPDATED SEGMENT RESULTS AND DO TP ADJUSTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1906/MUM/2017 FOR AY 2012 - 13 22. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS PRESSING THE GROUND NO. 4 AND 5 ONLY AND REST OF THE GROUNDS 18 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ARE NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY , THE GROUND NO. IS 1, 2, 3, 6 TO 11 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSE D. 23. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 4, WE NOTICED THAT THE GROUND NO. 4 IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND NO. 4 ARGUED BY LD . AR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12. THE FACTS AND ISSUE ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT DURING THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED AMORTISATIO N OF GOODWILL OF 68.27 LAKHS AND ACHIEVED SEGMENTAL REVENUE TO TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE OF 25.96% COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR RATIO OF 14.85%. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WE DIRECT TPO/AO TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION AS PER PARA NO 21 ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY , THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 24. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 5, WE NOTICED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT USED TO RAISE THE INVOICES FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN USD EQUIVALEN T TO INDIAN RUPEES RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE OVERSEAS SYMANTEC GROUP ENTITIES MADE PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN USD EQUIVALENT TO INDIAN RUPEES. SINCE THE INVOICES WERE RAISED IN USD, THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED THE PRACTICE OF KNOCKING OF TH E PAYMENT RECEIVED IN USD AGAINST THE INVOICES 19 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. RAISED IN USD TERMS. DUE TO THIS SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE ASSESSEE RECORDED FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION TO THE EXTENT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE EXCHANGE RATE ON THE DATE OF RAISING OF INVOICES AND EXCHANGE RATE O N THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF INVOICE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THIS SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS RECORDED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E., AYS 2009 10 TO AYS 2014 15, ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS WITH OVERSEAS EN TITIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE BEING REVERSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2014 15. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROFIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 M ARCH 2015 IS OVERSTATED BY 3,63,30, 696/ ON ACCOUNT OF REVERSAL OF FOREIGN EX CHANGE GAIN AND LOSSES OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS BEING THE PRIOR PERIOD ITEM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, SUCH FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSSES FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMP LETED, ARE NOW BEING VOLUNTARILY OFFERED TO TAX, WITHOUT CLAIMING REVERSAL OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN OF THE RESP ECTIVE YEARS VIZ AYS 2009 10, AYS 2010 11 AND AYS 2011 12 ON CONSERVATIVE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SINCE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING REVISED RETURN OF 20 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. INCOME HA S EXPIRED FOR AYS 2009 10, AY 2010 11 AND AYS 2011 12, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT R EVISE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER FOR AYS 2012 13, THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY OFFERED TO TAX THE REVERSAL OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS OF 1,95,94, 193/ PERTAINING TO TRANSACTIONS WITH OVERSEAS GROUP ENTITIES WHICH WAS EARLIER DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2011 12 I.E. FOR AYS 2012 13. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EARLIER CLAIMED TH E FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS OF 1,95,94, 193/ WHILE FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND TIME LIMIT FOR REVISING THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS EXPIRED, THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO OFFER THE ABOVE REVERSAL OF LOS SES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE ABOVE IN INCOME VOLUNTARILY, AO ACCEPTED THE SA ME AND ADDED THE ABOVE INTO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ISSUED THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER DRP ORDER, WHILE PASSING THE FINAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 143 (3) R.W.S 144C (13) OF THE ACT, AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION. THE ASSESS EE FILED APPLIC ATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE A CT , BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ABOVE DEFECT, ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 RECTIFYING THE ABOVE MISTAKE. 21 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 25. THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP THAT ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED THE FOREIGN - EXCHANGE LOSS WHILE FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE THE SEGMENTAL RESULT ORIGINALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE MODIFIED SINCE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED TH IS LOSS OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT REQUESTED THAT THE OPERATING EXPENSE HAS TO BE REDUCED TO THE EXTENT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS DECLARED IN SEGMENTAL RESULTS. THE DRP REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RETAINED THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE BY TH E TPO. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RISING THE GROUND NO. 5 THAT INAPPROPRIATELY DENYING REDUCTION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS FROM OPERATING COST OF THE ASSESSEE. 26. THE LEARNED AR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE PAGE 21 OF THE PAPE R BOOK IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION LOSS (NET) OF 224.71 LAKHS AND HE BROUGHT TO NOTICE SEGMENTAL REPORTING IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS APPORTIONED THE FOREX LOSS BETWEEN SALES AND MARKETING AND R&D SEGMENTS. HE BROUGHT OUR NOTICE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 O F THE ACT, IT IS PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 626 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED 22 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUO - MOTO OFFERED THE FOREIGN - EXCHANGE LOSS AS NOT DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES UNDER INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE , THE VOLUNT ARY DECLARATION UNDER INCOME TAX ACT SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE OPERATING EXPENSES, SINCE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS AS PART OF OPERATING EXPENSES UNDER SEGMENT REPORTING, ACCORDINGLY IT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM THE OPERATING EXPENSES. 27 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 28. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION LOSS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PERI OD 31 MARCH 2012 AND IT HAS APPORTIONED THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS BETWEEN THE SEGMENTS. IT HAS ALLOCATED 71.18 LAKHS AS OPERATING COST FOR THE R&D DIVISION. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED THE FOREX LOSS OF THIS ASSESS MENT YEAR TO THE EXTENT OF 1,95,94, 193/ . WE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT HOWEVER, ONLY DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SUBSEQUENT TO 23 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. COMP LETION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR AYS 2014 15, IT CAME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO FOREX LOSS AS THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOICING AND CLAIMING THE REVENUE IN US DOLLAR AND REPORTING THE SAME EQUIVALENT INDIAN RUPEES. SINCE THIS EXPENDITURE WAS OFFERED FOR T AXATION ONLY DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED THE LOSS IN THE SEGMENT REPORTING AS OPERATING EXPENDITURE, NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS REVERSED THE CLAIM O F THE EXPENDITURE IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE FOREX LOSS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SEGMENT REPORTING AS OPERATING EXPENDITURE AND SINCE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE SAME IN INCOME TAX COMPUTATION, THE SAME HAS TO BE ELIMINATED FROM THE OPERATING EXPENSES. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD . AR THAT THIS REVERSAL OF EXPENDITURE WILL HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON OPERATING EXPENSES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE AO ACCEPTS THE SEGMENT REPORTING REPORTED BY THE AS S ESSEE AND FOREX LOSS AS PART OF OPERATING EXPENSES, THE SAME EXPENSES WERE SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NON - DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES THEN, THIS EXPENSES SHOULD ALSO BE REMOVED FROM THE OPERATING EXPENSES IN THE SEGMENT STATEMENT. ACCORDINGLY , WE DIRECT TPO TO ELIMINATE THE FOREX LOSS DECLARED 24 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. BY THE ASSESSEE AS OPERATING EXPENSES AND REWORK THE OPERATING PROFIT OF THE R&D SEGMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED 71.18 LAKHS AS FOREX LOSS FOR THIS SEGMENT AND WE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE LOSS VOLUNTARILY, WE DIRECT TPO TO REMOVE THE FOREX LOSS FROM THE CALCULATION AND THEN REWORK T HE OPERATING PROFIT OF THE SEGMENT AND DO THE TP ADJUSTMENT ACCORDINGLY. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ALLOW THE GROUND NO. 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 29. IN THE NET RESULT , BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.09. 2020. S D/ - S D/ - (AMARJIT SINGH ) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 15.09 .2020 SR.PS. DHANANJAY 25 I.T.A. NO. 565/MUM/2016 & 1907/MUM/2017 M/S SYMANTEC SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPON DENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI