2021 (9) TMI 1109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt proceeding, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal alongwith application being bereft of merit is dismissed.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Appellant Through : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate with Ms. Easha Kadiyan, Advocate. Respondent Through : Mr. Deepak Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Ankul Goyal, Advocate. MANMOHAN, J. (Oral) The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing. 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 20th October, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short 'ITAT'] in ITA No. 1885/Del/2014 whereby the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The questions of law pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me. 4. He states that the ITAT erred in relying upon the order dated 4th September, 2018 passed by Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) [for short 'CIT(A)'] passed in the case of LG Electronics India Limited [for short 'LGEIL'] and the judgment dated 14th March, 2018 passed by the Supreme Court in Honda Motors Co. Ltd. V. SDIT in Civil Appeal Nos. 2833 to 2840 of 2018 to hold that the basis for initiating reassessment proceedings was bad in law on the grounds that at the time of formation of belief for initiating such proceedings on 30th March, 2011, the AO could not have the benefit of 'hindsight' i.e., the subsequent appellate order as well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt Year 2007-08 were allowed on the basis of finding of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) that the AEs do not have PE in India. 8. In the present case also re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act had been initiated against the respondent-assessee vide notice dated 30th March, 2011 on the ground that all AEs of LG Korea had PE in India in the form of LGEIL. Admittedly, in one of the proceedings filed by the LGEIL challenging the order passed under Section 201(1) of the Act for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2010-11, the CIT(A) vide consolidated order dated 4th September, 2018 held that none of the AEs, apart from LG Korea, had PE in India. The said order has not been appealed against by the Department and hence the finding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X