2012 (9) TMI 443 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - Business connection of the appellant in India - review petitions that some questions of law raised by the assessee have not been addressed in the judgment - Held that - whether ANR as its agent could be treated as Permanent Establishment - questions recorded against the appellant may cause prejudice to the appellant. - what would be the reasonable arm s length price at the hands of ANR/PE and not the profits earned by the assessee. - Review Petitions admitted against the original decision (2011 (8) TMI 313 - DELHI HIGH COURT).

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of appeals by both assessee and Revenue Department.
2. Review petitions filed by the assessee.
3. Questions of law raised by the assessee.
4. Grounds for review petition.
5. Admittance of the appeal on questions of law.
6. Arguments regarding business connection and Permanent Establishment.
7. Referral back to the Assessing Officer.
8. Determination of reasonable arm's length price.
9. Overlooking of certain aspects in the judgment.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addressed the disposal of multiple appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue Department. While the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, so were those of the assessee. The assessee filed five appeals, and review petitions were subsequently preferred primarily due to certain questions of law not being addressed in the judgment.

2. The review petitions focused on the grounds that specific questions of law raised by the assessee were not adequately dealt with in the initial judgment. The lead matter was identified as ITA 1278/2010, which was admitted based on seven questions of law framed from 'a' to 'g'.

3. The primary contention of the assessee revolved around the business connection in India and whether ANR could be considered a Permanent Establishment. The appellant argued that the issue of Arm's Length Price should be resolved first, as it would impact the considerations of business connection and Permanent Establishment.

4. The review petitioner highlighted that the judgment recorded findings against the appellant on questions 'a' to 'd' in para 36, which could potentially prejudice the appellant's case. The argument was made that the determination of a reasonable arm's length price at the hands of ANR/PE was crucial and had been overlooked.

5. Upon reviewing the submissions and the judgment, the court found the factual correctness of the judgment and allowed the Review Petitions. The court decided that the unanswered questions needed further examination, scheduling arguments on those aspects before the regular Roster Bench on 24th August 2012.

6. Ultimately, the Review Petitions were disposed of, indicating that the court acknowledged the need for a more thorough examination of the unanswered questions of law raised by the assessee. The judgment aimed to ensure a comprehensive consideration of all relevant legal aspects in the upcoming arguments before the regular Roster Bench.