TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent-assessee does not have PE in India for the purpose of 201 proceedings in the case of LGEIL but would have a PE as far as its own taxability is concerned for the same Assessment Year. This Court is of the opinion that if the present appeal is entertained, it would amount to sitting in an appeal over the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in [ 2018 (1) TMI 1610 - SUPREME COURT] This Court is of the opinion that in view of subsequent events post issuance of re-assessment notice in the present case, namely, the Supreme Court judgment in [ 2018 (1) TMI 1610 - SUPREME COURT] the proceedings initiated by the appellant-Revenue has become infructuous and accordingly ex debito justitiae, it is the duty of the Court to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tributable to the assessee PE in India? C. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT erred in law in setting aside re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act by the AO? 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the ITAT erred in holding that the re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) was bad in law. He submits that under Section 147 of the Act, it is well settled that at the time of re-opening what is required is the reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer ( AO ) that income has escaped assessment and there is no requirement to establish actual escapement of income. 4. He states that the ITAT erred in relying upon the order dated 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducted under Section 133A of the Act in the case of LGEIL and Honda Motors Co. Ltd. The Supreme Court in the case of Honda Motors Co. Ltd. being C.A No. 19659/2017 had held that in view of the fact that the Dispute Resolution Panel had found that there is no Permanent Establishment ( PE ) in India, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court was set aside and the appeals were allowed. 7. This proposition was also followed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.781/2018 in the case of L.G Group of Companies by virtue of which all the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by the Associated Enterprises ( AEs ) including the SLP filed by the PT LP Display Indonesia for the Assessment Year 2007-08 were allowed on the basis of finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
